Re: [閒聊] 關於高雄薪資
薪資的問題,全台大概只有一解,那就是老闆不想給。
朕不給的,你不能要,這應該是台灣薪資低廉最主要的原因吧!
以上是薪資的解答。
再來談高雄的問題,高雄是台灣重工業、石化業、加工出口業(以下統稱工業)的重鎮,
因為高雄有天然良港,所以這些產業多半聚集在高雄,也因為這樣,為高雄帶來就業人
口,也為台灣創造經濟奇蹟。
所以高雄是因港而起,因港而興的城市,也是因工業而起,因工業而興的城市。
如果高雄要捨棄工業發展觀光業,這是很不智的作法,
第1,工業是高雄的強項,全台灣除了高雄,沒其他縣市可匹敵。
第2,現實面,要把這些工業丟給其他縣市,也沒人想收。
第3,觀光很吃文化內函的,台灣文化內函深度也沒深到給外國人非來不可的感覺,
高雄對外國人來說,也不是非來不可的城市。
最近幾年,市府主打觀光產業,可預料到,以台灣這種觀光品質,
無法提升台灣的薪資,更別說提升高雄的薪資。
現在高雄要把重點移回自己的強項,除了工業,還有港口。
工業當然要移出市區,而且市區會擴張,因此工業區的重新規劃就顯得很重要,
台積電要在路竹設廠,雖然還很久,需要再觀察,但如果成真,應可拉抬薪資和其他
相關產業的產值。
而高雄的良港,很適合發展港務經貿,亞洲新灣區正是為此目的而開發。
來高雄觀光的人變多了,但還不到吸引人前來設點、發展,
不過之後高雄的爆發力,是可以期待的,
那時,薪資應該就會起來的。
但如果慣老闆還是很多,那薪資問題還是一樣無解,人家就是不想給嘛!
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 49.215.17.93
※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Kaohsiung/M.1487256024.A.AEE.html
※ 編輯: ks28712 (49.215.17.93), 02/16/2017 22:42:06
推
02/16 22:44, , 1F
02/16 22:44, 1F
推
02/16 22:46, , 2F
02/16 22:46, 2F
推
02/16 22:49, , 3F
02/16 22:49, 3F
→
02/16 22:49, , 4F
02/16 22:49, 4F
→
02/16 22:49, , 5F
02/16 22:49, 5F
推
02/16 22:50, , 6F
02/16 22:50, 6F
推
02/16 22:50, , 7F
02/16 22:50, 7F
→
02/16 22:50, , 8F
02/16 22:50, 8F
→
02/16 22:51, , 9F
02/16 22:51, 9F
→
02/16 22:52, , 10F
02/16 22:52, 10F
→
02/16 22:52, , 11F
02/16 22:52, 11F
推
02/16 22:55, , 12F
02/16 22:55, 12F
推
02/16 23:00, , 13F
02/16 23:00, 13F
推
02/16 23:02, , 14F
02/16 23:02, 14F
→
02/16 23:06, , 15F
02/16 23:06, 15F
→
02/16 23:07, , 16F
02/16 23:07, 16F
→
02/16 23:07, , 17F
02/16 23:07, 17F
推
02/16 23:19, , 18F
02/16 23:19, 18F
→
02/16 23:19, , 19F
02/16 23:19, 19F
→
02/16 23:26, , 20F
02/16 23:26, 20F
推
02/16 23:31, , 21F
02/16 23:31, 21F
→
02/16 23:31, , 22F
02/16 23:31, 22F
推
02/16 23:38, , 23F
02/16 23:38, 23F
→
02/16 23:38, , 24F
02/16 23:38, 24F
→
02/16 23:39, , 25F
02/16 23:39, 25F
推
02/16 23:47, , 26F
02/16 23:47, 26F
→
02/16 23:47, , 27F
02/16 23:47, 27F
→
02/16 23:49, , 28F
02/16 23:49, 28F
→
02/16 23:50, , 29F
02/16 23:50, 29F
噓
02/16 23:51, , 30F
02/16 23:51, 30F
→
02/16 23:51, , 31F
02/16 23:51, 31F
→
02/16 23:51, , 32F
02/16 23:51, 32F
推
02/17 00:00, , 33F
02/17 00:00, 33F
→
02/17 00:00, , 34F
02/17 00:00, 34F
→
02/17 00:00, , 35F
02/17 00:00, 35F
→
02/17 00:00, , 36F
02/17 00:00, 36F
推
02/17 00:00, , 37F
02/17 00:00, 37F
→
02/17 00:00, , 38F
02/17 00:00, 38F
推
02/17 00:36, , 39F
02/17 00:36, 39F
還有 37 則推文
→
02/17 09:44, , 77F
02/17 09:44, 77F
→
02/17 09:45, , 78F
02/17 09:45, 78F
→
02/17 09:46, , 79F
02/17 09:46, 79F
推
02/17 09:46, , 80F
02/17 09:46, 80F
→
02/17 09:55, , 81F
02/17 09:55, 81F
→
02/17 09:55, , 82F
02/17 09:55, 82F
→
02/17 09:56, , 83F
02/17 09:56, 83F
→
02/17 09:56, , 84F
02/17 09:56, 84F
→
02/17 09:56, , 85F
02/17 09:56, 85F
→
02/17 09:57, , 86F
02/17 09:57, 86F
→
02/17 09:58, , 87F
02/17 09:58, 87F
→
02/17 09:58, , 88F
02/17 09:58, 88F
→
02/17 09:59, , 89F
02/17 09:59, 89F
→
02/17 10:00, , 90F
02/17 10:00, 90F
→
02/17 10:01, , 91F
02/17 10:01, 91F
→
02/17 10:03, , 92F
02/17 10:03, 92F
推
02/17 10:08, , 93F
02/17 10:08, 93F
推
02/17 10:09, , 94F
02/17 10:09, 94F
→
02/17 10:09, , 95F
02/17 10:09, 95F
→
02/17 10:10, , 96F
02/17 10:10, 96F
→
02/17 10:10, , 97F
02/17 10:10, 97F
→
02/17 10:10, , 98F
02/17 10:10, 98F
→
02/17 10:11, , 99F
02/17 10:11, 99F
→
02/17 10:12, , 100F
02/17 10:12, 100F
→
02/17 10:12, , 101F
02/17 10:12, 101F
→
02/17 10:13, , 102F
02/17 10:13, 102F
推
02/17 10:56, , 103F
02/17 10:56, 103F
推
02/17 11:16, , 104F
02/17 11:16, 104F
→
02/17 11:19, , 105F
02/17 11:19, 105F
推
02/17 11:51, , 106F
02/17 11:51, 106F
推
02/17 13:11, , 107F
02/17 13:11, 107F
噓
02/17 16:22, , 108F
02/17 16:22, 108F
→
02/17 17:14, , 109F
02/17 17:14, 109F
→
02/17 17:14, , 110F
02/17 17:14, 110F
→
02/17 18:14, , 111F
02/17 18:14, 111F
→
02/17 18:16, , 112F
02/17 18:16, 112F
→
02/17 18:48, , 113F
02/17 18:48, 113F
→
02/17 18:50, , 114F
02/17 18:50, 114F
→
02/17 18:51, , 115F
02/17 18:51, 115F
→
02/17 18:52, , 116F
02/17 18:52, 116F
討論串 (同標題文章)