@DCGoldPants Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 Would NOT paying them a bonus help? How?---------- Post added October-27th-2011 at 11:27 AM ---------- Sometimes. But we're still wating for Ethanol to do more than just ensure that Iowa gets the most influence in our Presidential process. I agree. Tell those farmers to stop growing corn, and start growing industrial hemp for the next factories near the farms to process it into fabrics that will be replacing the much harder to grow and harvest cotton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 Should an exec make the same as a line worker? Can the exec do what she does it the worker doesn't do what he does? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 Can the exec do what she does it the worker doesn't do what he does? Yes, they can always find more workers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monte51Coleman Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 It's a penny-wise, pound foolish concept. Extreme focus on the payroll section of expense reduction actually results in more productivity per employee but a loss in possible revenues due to insufficient service. For instance, in an organization such as retailing, less employee coverage results in frustrated consumers that accordingly result in reduced sales results. Bonuses are great for those the receive them. When based on mis-placed ideals? Not so good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 Yes, they can always find more workers. Which is why being a skilled worker is more valuable than being an unskilled worker. Guaranteeing unskilled workers a job is welfare, and it's bad for society in the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 It's a penny-wise, pound foolish concept. Extreme focus on the payroll section of expense reduction actually results in more productivity per employee but a loss in possible revenues due to insufficient service. For instance, in an organization such as retailing, less employee coverage results in frustrated consumers that accordingly result in reduced sales results.Bonuses are great for those the receive them. When based on mis-placed ideals? Not so good. If that's true (and Im certain that it is in some companies and not in others), then the market will correct itself if given the time to do so. If the Gap makes more money but has ****tier service, eventually a new store will start to eat into those profits. But that's got to be a naturally occuring action. The govt cant mandate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 It's a penny-wise, pound foolish concept. Extreme focus on the payroll section of expense reduction actually results in more productivity per employee but a loss in possible revenues due to insufficient service. For instance, in an organization such as retailing, less employee coverage results in frustrated consumers that accordingly result in reduced sales results. My guess is that most businesses hire MBAs who understand this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monte51Coleman Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 The govt cant mandate it. Who said it could or should? ---------- Post added October-27th-2011 at 11:49 AM ---------- My guess is that most businesses hire MBAs who understand this. You would be shocked to find out the truth about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 If an exec can maximise his profits, while minimizing expenses shouldnt he earn a bonus?Depends on how it's done. Where I work, we've had multiple waves of layoffs over the past few years. Some of it is truly improvements in effeciency and eliminating waste. But in plenty of situations fully productive people were let go and their work distributed among other fully busy people. As a result I know a number of people working 70+ hours a week, going on a year or more. These are not business owners, simply salaried professionals being taken advantage of because of market conditions. Due to age, pension considerations, etc. they're not in a position to change jobs unless things become intolerable. I understand - and so do most of the people in this situation - that due to economic downturn some belt-tightening is necessary and the people let go probably consider those left behind lucky even with a doubled workload. But this is turning into a permanent situation even as there has been some easing of the strain on profits. At some point this is less "because we need to " than "because we can get away with it". I also understand that this is partly just how the system works, the boss always has a lot of power over the hired hand. But this is also how unions are formed, how morale is ruined, and company loyalty and pride is trashed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 What I frequently see is a lack of succession managment. Sure you may have 4 workers covering the 4 tasks you need done, and you only need 4 because they are the best at jobs A through D. However, you have nobody when one of them leaves, and there is a reduction in efficiency in cross training. If companies are lucky/well run, they hire a 5th person. The question then becomes is the new position at the bottom trying to learn the general tasks of A through D to the point where they can step in as needed even if not at the level of the ariginal 4 or is the position above with one of the 4 promoted and hiring their replacement. From my friends companies, I see a lot of the first option because it's cheaper in the short run. I usually argue for option 2 because then the managers have some experience, and the workers can hope for promotion which may lead to more of the skilled workers staying longer. Question for those of Kilmer's mindset: is the best of the original workers less valuable with the first option above? He was always the most popular and best widget turner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 Not always true. Increased use of technology could, and does, lead to less jobs needed whlie not always increasing the demand on the company workforce. Note that I said, "most businesses." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 Yes, they can always find more workers. And they can always find more executives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 Yes, they can always find more workers. See there's that attitude I was talking about, workers are expendable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 I don't think that 2% GDP growth is really a major improvement. OTOH, it's better than it has been. I think we've been seeing signs that things at least aren't getting worse as quickly as they used to, for some times. Positive signs. I also, though, remember reading a nice article somebody posted. (Might even have been me, I'm not sure.) Basically, the article said that this particular downturn is because people had too much debt, and it's not going to get better until people pay down their debt. That in the past, when these kinds of "deleveraging" things have occurred, it typically takes about 8 years before things get better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 And they can always find more executives. Yes, the certainly can. But its far more expensive to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seabee1973 Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 I agree with this, but don't understand the push back against green technology, which seems to me to be an area of new industry that can create this opportunity.~Bang every green technology job that is created right now takes the place of 2 regular jobs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 every green technology job that is created right now takes the place of 2 regular jobsEvery made up statistic takes the place of 3 actual facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 every green technology job that is created right now takes the place of 2 regular jobs That's an interesting statistic. Where did you get it from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebluefood Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 Looks like good news. What this will mean for us in the long run will be seen in the coming months. Hopefully, we're on our way back up. ---------- Post added October-27th-2011 at 02:14 PM ---------- every green technology job that is created right now takes the place of 2 regular jobs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 every green technology job that is created right now takes the place of 2 regular jobs So, if we fire steel mills back up to start constructing wind turbines,, this will cause 7-11 to have to look for two new employees to replace those who left to make better money? Innovation creates opportunity... except when the innovation might hurt oil compani... i mean the right wing... i mean oil compa.. oh hell, they're one in the same. If it means it eliminates the jobs of propaganda spewing bull****ters who spend their time indoctrinating you through the TV about the benefits of remaining where we are, then i'm all for it. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 Why would we invest in Green tech, when China is already doing that? We can just buy it cheaper than we will ever make it. It may not be as good, but it'll be cheap and we can throw it away and buy new stuffs. It doesn't even pollute our part of the planet if we don't make it, making it even greener! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 Why would we invest in Green tech, when China is already doing that? We can just buy it cheaper than we will ever make it. It may not be as good, but it'll be cheap and we can throw it away and buy new stuffs. It doesn't even pollute our part of the planet if we don't make it, making it even greener! We can even borrow the money from China to pay for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 We can even borrow the money from China to pay for it. Free ****! Why didn't I think of that? Maybe we can borrow money from them to pay Korea to come fix our roads and bridges while we're at it. I love a global economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 every green technology job that is created right now takes the place of 2 regular jobs This make sense. I hired a skilled contractor make my home more energy efficient. If I had not done this I would have hired two fat, but cheap people to sit either side of the gap in the door to keep the cold air out and the warm air in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 This make sense. I hired a skilled contractor make my home more energy efficient. If I had not done this I would have hired two fat, but cheap people to sit either side of the gap in the door to keep the cold air out and the warm air in. socialist America hater! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.