Interim CFO - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Feb 26, 2006

RE: Interim CFO

Date: Feb 26, 2006

Mental illness is living up North with freezing rain, snow, wind, and ice. Mental illness is living in New York, Chicago, D.C., or any other large area, and spend two or more hours a day commuting. Mental illness is reading the New York Times and believing that it is all of the news fit to print. Mental illness is doing anything I would not do. Obviously that is why there is no much mental illness going around, there is plenty for everyone.

Date: Feb 26, 2006

The very people who are talking about money not mattering are the same people who will complain when their children get only low-paying jobs after graduating from USM. The mentality of "stay at home for life" causes local wages to be low -- employers don't have to pay a reasonable salary (or a living wage) because workers want to live in their hometowns all their lives. Why can't Mississippi move forward economically? Because too many would rather stay at home.

Date: Feb 26, 2006

Moneymaker, Shaken wrote:

Truth,

You're showing your ignorance here. There are at least four other Morgan family members who currently work or have worked at USM in the past year. Three of them have been affiliated with the COB. I will not publish their names, but those who pay attention at USM know who they are.

It's strange how "nepotism" only applies to certain families. I'm not saying Morgan is a bad guy. What I'm saying is that nepotism is nepotism.

Moneymaker:

Give us some proof that Joe Morgan hired one of his relatives to work directly for him (or that he was hired that way). Until you do that, your charges of "nepotism" are baseless.

Truth

Date: Feb 26, 2006

Your recent crusade for a truthful definition of nepotism is strange but not surprising. I don't remember you questioning the definition of nepotism when so many on this board were commenting about Shelby and Dana. He didn't hire her. Once again, the fact that Joe Morgan is a nice guy doesn't excuse it.

By the way, I guess it's okay for all of the Morgan family to work at USM, especially when so many were hired without a search.

Date: Feb 26, 2006

Moneymaker, Shaken wrote:

Your recent crusade for a truthful definition of nepotism is strange but not surprising. I don't remember you questioning the definition of nepotism when so many on this board were commenting about Shelby and Dana. He didn't hire her. Once again, the fact that Joe Morgan is a nice guy doesn't excuse it.

By the way, I guess it's okay for all of the Morgan family to work at USM, especially when so many were hired without a search.

Does any Morgan relative report directly to Joe Morgan (or does he report directly to a relative)? Again, unless you have proof of this, your argument is baseless. I'll stand by this until its proven otherwise.

Truth

Date: Feb 26, 2006

Again, I'm glad you are choosing a strict definition of nepotism for Morgan when a broad definition has been applied to others.

Date: Feb 26, 2006

employers don't have to pay a reasonable salary (or a living wage)

Please tell me that you make this statement on the spur of the moment and did not ponder on it long. The words "reasonable salary" and "living wage" are emotional terms. They have no meaning in commerce. A person who makes this statement does not go into a business and pay extra for the goods so that the owner can make a living wage. When the worker comes to fix your home after Katrina and submits the bill, you would not pay them extra. Indeed, I have observed a person who made similar statements leave no tip at the restaurant after the meal. Employers pay the wages necessary to hire people and retain them. Customers pay the price for goods or do not buy them.

Date: Feb 26, 2006

I'm puzzled that anybody is trying to make a parallel between the nepotism situation of ST & DT, and any other nepotism situation at USM. From what I understand, DT is pretty much the queen of her area and nobody can touch her because of Daddy. Is this true elsewhere on campus?

Date: Feb 26, 2006

Cossack wrote:

employers don't have to pay a reasonable salary (or a living wage)

Please tell me that you make this statement on the spur of the moment and did not ponder on it long. The words "reasonable salary" and "living wage" are emotional terms. They have no meaning in commerce. A person who makes this statement does not go into a business and pay extra for the goods so that the owner can make a living wage. When the worker comes to fix your home after Katrina and submits the bill, you would not pay them extra. Indeed, I have observed a person who made similar statements leave no tip at the restaurant after the meal. Employers pay the wages necessary to hire people and retain them. Customers pay the price for goods or do not buy them.

Cossack, my statement was for effect. Many times discussions on this board have centered around economic unfairness/evils of capitalism/etc., and the lack of the so-called "living wage" in Mississippi. In this, as in all cases, individuals make choices. The choice being advocated by some on this thread is to stay at home in Hattiesburg. My response is that until the lion's share of the better students from USM leave (or at least consider leaving) South Mississippi, employers (even large regional or national firms) have no market pressure to pay higher wages and salaries. If market pressure were there, all wage levels in MS would begin to rise accordingly. Unfortunately, however, many would rather stay at home in Hattiesburg and earn much less money than move to Jackson, the Coast, or the New Orleans area. Without firms in these larger job market areas extending job offers to USM grads, Hattiesburg employers get workers for peanuts. These very workers complain about wage levels being low, yet they refuse to broaden their horizons to include job possibilities less than two hours away.

An additional drawback is that there are way too many "connections" in organizations such as USM and FGH, as well as other employers. Whether or not one family member reports to another is irrelevant; if a job is had through favors, connections, personal calls, etc., this means that the position being filled cannot be guaranteed to be either fair or filled by the best person. If you question my logic, ask yourself how SFT got his presidency. Has he been a success?

Date: Feb 26, 2006

In the case of those related to the joe morgan, they may not work for him, but they are related to him. They may not have been gievn special treatment because of him but maybe because of another moragn up the line. They were given special consideration above others who were just as qualified or even ore qualified for the position they were given.

In the case of the CoB i dont think they are saying Joe hired them.

Date: Feb 26, 2006

Moneymaker, Shaken

My original post was an effort to distinguish between positive and normative statements. That is, to distinguish between what is versus what someone thinks, “ought to be”. One of the greatest aspects of living in this country is the breadth and depth of choices that individuals can make. For some reason, you have decided that there is something wrong or silly for individuals to choose to live and work in the Hattiesburg area and in the state of Mississippi because they receive lower wages here than they could get elsewhere. Human beings do not have lexicographic orderings of their preferences; hence they choose to make trade offs between wages, lifestyle, geographic location, size of community, and type of job. My attempt at humor where I alluded to mental illness as “living in New York City” reflects my preferences for a warmer climate and a small town environment. But I do not think that others should share my preferences, and there are many positive reasons to live in New York. From your posts, it appears that you consider those people who choose to remain in the town or state of their birth as irrational because their income in dollar terms is less that could be earned in other locations.

A comparison would be to contend that a faculty member in a college, where salaries are lower due to market forces, is making a bad choice to continue working in their discipline. One needs only to observe the actions of faculty in the lower paying disciplines to see that such is not the case. While being a well know scholar in English may not pay as well as a similar position in the sciences, it does not appear to stop future scholars from getting a graduate degree in English. It also does not reduce their excitement in pursuing their chosen profession.

I have confidence in people to pursue their opportunities as they see fit and respect their choices. However, I do have a problem when people train for as career knowing what the salaries are in the workplace complain after the fact that they are under paid.

Date: Feb 26, 2006

not related wrote:

In the case of those related to the joe morgan, they may not work for him, but they are related to him. They may not have been gievn special treatment because of him but maybe because of another moragn up the line. They were given special consideration above others who were just as qualified or even ore qualified for the position they were given.
In the case of the CoB i dont think they are saying Joe hired them.

Again, this is baseless speculation unless you have concrete evidence. Do you have such evidence? (more than just "so-and-so told me that her 3rd cousin told her that Joe Morgan told some other department head to hire his niece twice removed."). If you have something substantial to add to the discussion, bring it on. If not, you shouldn't be surprised when your "anedoctal evidence" is treated as just that.

Truth

PS--So, if everyone wants to use a strict definition of "nepotism," then every spousal hire in higher ed is "nepotism." Anyone care to go down that road?

Date: Feb 26, 2006

Cossack,

Your post confuses me a bit. I'm not too sure we really disagree, just that we may be getting to the same conclusion from two different directions.

What I am saying is that it is incongruent to hold these two belief systems: (1) I should be able to live anywhere I want to and (2) I should be able to make the salary I think I deserve. My observation was that many of the same people who choose to live in Hattiesburg (and who strongly encourage their children to stay in Hattiesburg) are exactly the people who want to complain about salaries and wages being so low. Individuals can either wait for the Salary Fairy to magically raise salaries in Mississippi or they can help bump salaries up by participating in the regional or national job market rather than the local job market. While I understand positive versus normative statements well, I am speaking to making choices and living with them, not making choices and then expecting someone else to take away the negatives of your choices. Again, there are many who choose to stay in Hattiesburg for family reasons (at lower salaries) while some of our more tender-hearted fellow posters lament the lack of a "living wage."

By the way, I think the concept of the "living wage" is bogus. Nobody with a child going to college right now should have any doubt about the economic conditions in Mississippi, nor should they have any expectation that the Mississippi economy will explode in the near future. That said, I wish anyone who chooses to stay in Hattiesburg after graduating from USM (or after returning from Ole Miss, State, or even Harvard) good luck and a great life. I just don't want to hear any complaining about low salaries and wages from these people, since nearly everyone has the ability to job hunt nationally (monster.com, etc.). If one chooses to ignore the 99% of the national job market that lies outside of South Mississippi, then one cannot make too many broad statements about being underpaid. After all, unless you've participated in a national job search, you really have no idea of your true worth.

Date: Feb 26, 2006

You are right, I misconstrued your post. From your latest message I would say that we are in the same church and same pew.

Date: Feb 26, 2006

But not everyone unhappy with wages is a recent USM graduate. And not everyone is free to move.

Wages in this area for NON- recent graduates are extremely low, and USM is one of the worst offenders. I have always thought that USM and FGH, by offering people many non-monetary reasons to work for them, have together kept wages low. In other words, I accepted the crummy salary to get Christmas off, library privileges, tuition, etc.

What is USM doing to get good staffers these days? I doubt the salaries have improved very much.

Date: Feb 26, 2006

LVN wrote:

But not everyone unhappy with wages is a recent USM graduate. And not everyone is free to move.

Wages in this area for NON- recent graduates are extremely low, and USM is one of the worst offenders. I have always thought that USM and FGH, by offering people many non-monetary reasons to work for them, have together kept wages low. In other words, I accepted the crummy salary to get Christmas off, library privileges, tuition, etc.

What is USM doing to get good staffers these days? I doubt the salaries have improved very much.

Life is full of choices. When we choose to get married, get divorced, have children, care for parents, live close to family, etc., we are making choices that, for good or ill, are ours. They are a product of our values systems. Sometimes that means we work at low wages with the tradeoff being proximity to family. Sometimes the tradeoff is nonpecuniary benefits, or perquisites. Until USM is unable to get passable staffers at all, USM will continue to pay the lowest possible wages -- until USM is in desperate need of the kind of quality clerical assistants (e.g.) that are common in the private sector, USM will not pay that level of wage. By the way, there are precious few secretaries at USM that could hold down a job in the private sector.

There are any number of opportunities available if one is willing to relocate, which brings us back to the beginning...it is irrational to expect to "have it all," especially when one is complicit in compressing one's own wages.

Date: Feb 26, 2006

LVN wrote:

But not everyone unhappy with wages is a recent USM graduate. And not everyone is free to move.

Wages in this area for NON- recent graduates are extremely low, and USM is one of the worst offenders. I have always thought that USM and FGH, by offering people many non-monetary reasons to work for them, have together kept wages low. In other words, I accepted the crummy salary to get Christmas off, library privileges, tuition, etc.

What is USM doing to get good staffers these days? I doubt the salaries have improved very much.

LVN,

Maybe it's time to retool. If your current career path is at a standstill, then maybe you should try to escape the plantation and get you some learnin' in another field.

SE

Date: Feb 26, 2006

Moneymaker, Shaken wrote:

Life is full of choices. When we choose to get married, get divorced, have children, care for parents, live close to family, etc., we are making choices that, for good or ill, are ours. They are a product of our values systems. Sometimes that means we work at low wages with the tradeoff being proximity to family. Sometimes the tradeoff is nonpecuniary benefits, or perquisites. Until USM is unable to get passable staffers at all, USM will continue to pay the lowest possible wages -- until USM is in desperate need of the kind of quality clerical assistants (e.g.) that are common in the private sector, USM will not pay that level of wage. By the way, there are precious few secretaries at USM that could hold down a job in the private sector.

There are any number of opportunities available if one is willing to relocate, which brings us back to the beginning...it is irrational to expect to "have it all," especially when one is complicit in compressing one's own wages.

You missed the point totally. It's too late to start into an argument. Tomorrow.

Date: Feb 26, 2006

Secret Embrace wrote:

LVN,

Maybe it's time to retool. If your current career path is at a standstill, then maybe you should try to escape the plantation and get you some learnin' in another field.

SE

That would be an option if I were 15 years younger. However, I did not make any comment about my own personal career path.

Date: Feb 27, 2006

LVN,

As one who has posted on this Board for a while, I applaud your responses. Keep knocking them out of the proverbial ballpark.

Date: Feb 27, 2006

No, I most certainly did not miss the point. However, you're coming dangerously close to missing the point. As long as individuals tie themselves to a particular geographic area, they are at the mercy of those who cut the checks. Those who are bound to Hattiesburg are most probably the victims of those very choices I was talking about last night. Until some of these folks can look a Hattiesburg employer in the eye and say "I'm one of your most valuable employees. I have a job offer at [fill in company name here] located in [fill in non-Mississippi city name here] for [fill in excess dollar amount]. I will leave unless you can make me a better offer than I have with you right now." then they are not doing their part to force employers to raise wages and salaries. The onus is not on the employer to pay a particular wage; the employers' duty to the owners of the company is to pay the least it can for labor. It's not up to USM to start offering great compensation as long as individuals will accept the crummy compensation USM currently offers.

Date: Feb 27, 2006

Moneymaker, Shaken wrote:

No, I most certainly did not miss the point. However, you're coming dangerously close to missing the point. As long as individuals tie themselves to a particular geographic area, they are at the mercy of those who cut the checks. Those who are bound to Hattiesburg are most probably the victims of those very choices I was talking about last night. Until some of these folks can look a Hattiesburg employer in the eye and say "I'm one of your most valuable employees. I have a job offer at [fill in company name here] located in [fill in non-Mississippi city name here] for [fill in excess dollar amount]. I will leave unless you can make me a better offer than I have with you right now." then they are not doing their part to force employers to raise wages and salaries. The onus is not on the employer to pay a particular wage; the employers' duty to the owners of the company is to pay the least it can for labor. It's not up to USM to start offering great compensation as long as individuals will accept the crummy compensation USM currently offers.

Dangerously? Please.

I think you and I are talking apples and oranges. Very few people in any situation can play the "better offer" game. Most people would get a "let me help you clear out your desk." You're talking about a different level of employee than I am. I thought I made it clear that I meant the "NON recent USM graduates." When two major employers can get a stranglehold on wages and still get people because of other "good things" they offer, then wages in the whole area are going to stay somewhat flat. I'm not talking about a Vice-President, I'm talking about an assistant manager, an administrative assistant, people like that. There is a dearth of jobs at the mid-level for well-educated but non-academic people. Most of them are at USM

You seem to have an unrealistic concept of the work world most people live in. And I can say that because I've defended faculty against that charge for nearly two years.

Date: Feb 27, 2006

Again, I'm glad you are choosing a strict definition of nepotism for Morgan when a broad definition has been applied to others.

How about a correct definition? That's the one I'm using. Not sure what wacky dictionary you are using (perhaps one found in the USM-D'Lo library?).

Truth

Date: Feb 27, 2006

LVN wrote:

Moneymaker, Shaken wrote:
No, I most certainly did not miss the point. However, you're coming dangerously close to missing the point. As long as individuals tie themselves to a particular geographic area, they are at the mercy of those who cut the checks. Those who are bound to Hattiesburg are most probably the victims of those very choices I was talking about last night. Until some of these folks can look a Hattiesburg employer in the eye and say "I'm one of your most valuable employees. I have a job offer at [fill in company name here] located in [fill in non-Mississippi city name here] for [fill in excess dollar amount]. I will leave unless you can make me a better offer than I have with you right now." then they are not doing their part to force employers to raise wages and salaries. The onus is not on the employer to pay a particular wage; the employers' duty to the owners of the company is to pay the least it can for labor. It's not up to USM to start offering great compensation as long as individuals will accept the crummy compensation USM currently offers.

Dangerously? Please.

I think you and I are talking apples and oranges. Very few people in any situation can play the "better offer" game. Most people would get a "let me help you clear out your desk." You're talking about a different level of employee than I am. I thought I made it clear that I meant the "NON recent USM graduates." When two major employers can get a stranglehold on wages and still get people because of other "good things" they offer, then wages in the whole area are going to stay somewhat flat. I'm not talking about a Vice-President, I'm talking about an assistant manager, an administrative assistant, people like that. There is a dearth of jobs at the mid-level for well-educated but non-academic people. Most of them are at USM

You seem to have an unrealistic concept of the work world most people live in. And I can say that because I've defended faculty against that charge for nearly two years.

You're working on the assumption that there is an invisible force field surrounding Hattiesburg that will not let people escape. If you want to talk about wages being low, then it's not the fault of the employer. They will pay only what they have to. Until the workforce starts looking elsewhere for jobs, USM and FGH won't pay a penny more. And that middle manager you mention should only play the "better pffer" game if he or she is willing to move. Otherwise, it's just a bluff waiting to be called. Stop waiting on someone to magically raise the wage in Mississippi through legislation or some such asinine activity. It's up to the Mississippi workforce to either demand higher wages by looking for better offers or shut up about being underpaid.

Date: Feb 27, 2006

I'm going to back up here and use smaller words so that you can understand what I'm saying. No matter what your level of employment, if you choose to constrain your job possibilities to a small area, you constrain your entire universe of possibilities. You seem to want government (or some other entity) to force employers to pay higher wages. What you fail to understand is that as long as employers can get away with paying less, then they will pay less. Employees can make a dent in this behavior by seeking employment opportunities elsewhere. Is anything that I have said yet untrue? No! Should the government take action to raise the wage? No!

The U.S. Constitution does not guarantee anyone the RIGHT to make a living. Your agrument sound like you think an individual has the right to live anywhere they want AND make the salary they want as well. I hope I'm wrong, because that would mean Socialism is alive and well on the AAUP message board.

Date: Feb 27, 2006

Stop wasting your breath, Moneymaker. You're arguing with individuals who have a great knowledge of liberalism and a dearth of knowledge of economics.

Date: Feb 27, 2006

94 Legacy wrote:

Stop wasting your breath, Moneymaker. You're arguing with individuals who have a great knowledge of liberalism and a dearth of knowledge of economics.

Heh, heh...LVN a liberal...this is getting funnier by the moment!

Truth, friend of smart and friendly conservatives like LVN

Date: Feb 27, 2006

I think you are talking past each other. Both of you are correct. Historically USM faculty have provided Hattiesburg with spouses and children who flood the job market with well educated and trained labor. Forrest General and USM have both used this to maintain lower wages according to the law of supply and demand. It would be very hard for married faculty with children to have one spouse seek employment elsewhere as suggested. Not impossible, but very difficult.

Date: Feb 27, 2006

Old Faculty Spouse wrote:

I think you are talking past each other. Both of you are correct. Historically USM faculty have provided Hattiesburg with spouses and children who flood the job market with well educated and trained labor. Forrest General and USM have both used this to maintain lower wages according to the law of supply and demand. It would be very hard for married faculty with children to have one spouse seek employment elsewhere as suggested. Not impossible, but very difficult.

The problem here is that the spousal situation is a joint decision -- if both spouses have jobs, then they are ostensibly in the best job "package" for that spousal unit. Otherwise, they should reconfigure (relocate). I know individuals who work at USM (and who want to leave USM) whose spouses have great jobs in Hattiesburg, and they (the USMers) choose to stay at USM because their family situation is good. I don't know where this holdup idea comes from, that USM and FGH have a gun pointed at workers that makes them stay in Hattiesburg. You choose to stay (individually or as a unit) or you choose to leave.

On the LVN/truth note, you can be more conservative than Noam Chomsky and still not be a conservative. Likewise you can be more liberal than John Birch and still not be liberal. I would suspect that LVN has some conservative ideals, but anyone who fights this kind of normative fight cannot be a true conservative.