Best & Worst Jobs

[Dr. Shane]

Forbes Releases List Of Best And Worst-Paying U.S. Jobs

Quote:

orbes.com has released a list of the best and worst-paying jobs in America.

The medical field still offers the nine best-paid jobs in the country while food handlers and servers are at the bottom of the totem pole.

The average annual income for surgeons is over 206-thousand dollars.

Anesthesiologists are in second place earning 197-thousand dollars a year on average followed by orthodontists in third place with 194-thousand, obstetrician and gynecologists in fourth at 192-thousand and oral and maxillofacial surgeons in fifth place with an average annual pay of 190-thousand dollars.

Food-preperation and servers make the lowest average annual income at a little over 17-thousand dollars.

Cooks and fast food workers fare about 200 dollars better per year.

Believe it or not, dishwashers make even more with 17-thousand-750-dollars per year while dining room and cafeteria attendants, along with cocktail waitresses and bar backs make just over 18-thousand dollars a year.

[Dr. Shane]

Remember we were talking about tipping be4 and some didn't like to tip. Well,,, now we see waitress among the lowest paid. I bet if everyone would give the 15% tip they wouldn't be so far down the economic ladder.

[Key Guy]

Shane, Where should I draw the line? Who deserves tips and who doesn't? IOW: Is there a line to draw between one career or wage level and another? I would hate to marginalize a profession on the cusp of being paid too little or pay a tip to one over the line in the high-pay bracket.

[Woody]

Should we tip someone who is making more than we make?

[Key Guy]

Grimmy,

I think my questions have never been answered.

[Dr. Shane]

The point is that Forbes has demonstrated that waitresses are at the bottom of the economic ladder and we still have people wondering if they should tip the poorest of the poor.

[phkrause]

I agree KeyGuy, but my question to you would be, Do you think it ever will be? I would say more than likely it wont be. Because those that want to, will and those that don't, wont. I think that in itself is an answer.

pk

[Key Guy]

I agree KeyGuy, but my question to you would be, Do you think it ever will be? I would say more than likely it wont be. Because those that want to, will and those that don't, wont(sic). I think that in itself is an answer.

I think what aggravates me the most is how many folks want to bloviate but prefer to avoid actual discussion with the sharing and recognizing of facts. It doesn't just happen here, but this is a great location for classic examples.

[phkrause]

Hey KeyGuy did you change my post? I guess its not really mine any longer. hahahahaha hehehehehe hohohohoho I agree with your post.

pk

[Key Guy]

I haven't changed any posts. I also didn't get the joke... sorry. What did I miss?

[Woody]

Now we have a name for what has been going on here.

And some here are bloviationists.

[phkrause]

Let me see if I can figure this out! Here is my original quote:

"I agree KeyGuy, but my question to you would be, Do you think it ever will be? I would say more than likely it wont be. Because those that want to, will and those that don't, wont. I think that in itself is an answer."

now here is my quote inside of your post:

"I agree KeyGuy, but my question to you would be, Do you think it ever will be? I would say more than likely it wont be. Because those that want to, will and those that don't, wont(sic). I think that in itself is an answer."

Look at the two underlined area's. Somehow (sic) got added, that's what I was laughing about. I thought you added that. If you didn't, how did that change. Petty strange if you didn't.

pk

[Key Guy]

Yeah, I added sic

"Sic is a Latin word meaning "thus", "so", "as such", or "in such a manner". In writing, it is placed within square brackets and usually italicized – [sic] – to indicate that an incorrect or unusual spelling, phrase, punctuation, and/or other preceding quoted material has been reproduced verbatim from the quoted original and is not a transcription error."

'wont' should be 'won't'

[phkrause]

Thanks, sometimes I write it that way and other times I don't. My spell checker seems to like it either way. Weird.

pk

[GreatLakesGramma]

I thought it meant "spelling is correct," as in not correct spelling, but correctly copied from the original.

[Woody]

[sic] ... I thought this was what one told his dog to do when he didn't appreciate what his neighbor was doing.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I thought it meant "spelling is correct," as in not correct spelling, but correctly copied from the original.

that's what I thought it meant too

[Woody]

That's because you don't have a dog.

[GreatLakesGramma]

Redwood, this is another case of a word having more than one meaning. Looking at the context, I don't believe your chosen definition quite fits this particular case.

[Woody]

I agree. I am just joking. Sorry. My humor is not always understood.

PS. And for our International crowd such as Bravus ... that is known as humour instead of humor.

[GreatLakesGramma]

I know. I was just kidding too.

[phkrause]

Well now I know. I never knew that before. Thanks

pk