Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: When employees receive a raise in pay, do they produce more ?

Posted 2 years ago on March 20, 2012, 10:40 a.m. EST by FriendlyObserverB (1871)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Is money really an incentive to work harder?

When employees receive a five percent increase in pay , does production increase by five percent ?

Or does production pretty much remain the same even after a pay hike ?

158 Comments

158 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Simply put: no employees, no profits, no wealth. Employees are, by far, the most important asset of any sizable company. Productivity gains almost always arise from the rank-and-file. Anyone with any real corporate experience knows that top managers are too removed from the day-to-day and mid-level managers are too stupid to figure anything out on their own -- probably "A" students. ;-)

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

never saw them that way

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

You mean mangers or employees or both?

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

managers at least outside research employment

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

I think it depends on the industry. Science-based companies, like biopharms, etc, probably have a better class of executive who emerge from the ranks more often due to the esoteric nature of the business. I've never worked for a science-based outfit so I wouldn't know. The outfits I've worked for, from Major League Baseball to Calvin Klein Cosmetics, do not promote good people and don't hang on to the good executives hired from outside for very long.

I think Joe Torre is the best promotion in MLB in decades. I wouldn't expect him to last in the commissioner's office for too long, but much like Tommy Lasorda, he can punch his own ticket at this point so he probably doesn't have a lot of BS to put up with.

[-] 0 points by PopsMauler (182) from Chicago, IL 2 years ago

YES!!!!!!! Too true!!!! :D Well put!

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by ibanker (-99) 2 years ago

Depends on what employees you are talking about. Importance increases with skill level. I see you have a dislike for senior management, all lower level employees do. Nothing new about that. Just because someone does not tighten screws in the factory floor does not mean he/she is removed from the working of the organization. But then this is a OWS forum where everyone is a jobless hippie and think corporations are evil. So basically i am preaching in a desert.

[-] 5 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Not so, iBanker. I've been in senior management myself, and have coordinated a staff of more than 160. I have owned investment property and earned 48% ROE in my portfolio as a contrarian. I've been in the money and out of the money. I'm not sweating the money.

It's the assholes I don't like. And don't tell me you don't know what I'm talking about. If you've been around corporate America for any length of time, you know full well that most executives are promoted to their "level of incompetence." And you know the difference between executives who are loyal to the business and the industry and those that are loyal only to themselves. After more than 25 years in the labor force, I feel confident that my observations have merit. I'm not the guy looking for a handout. But if I had a nickel for every senior executive I've seen asking a subordinate for a favor, I'd have enough money to pave a gold highway to the moon. And so would you! ;-)

[-] 4 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

The execs are always looking over the shoulder of the hard working man. Trying to learn something.

[-] 2 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Ain't that the truth!

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

Yes, the Peter Principle.

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Indeed. Most people think of that as an extreme version but the reality is quite striking. I've worked for Unilever, Goldman Sachs, Major League Baseball, CNN and many other large corporations, full time, part time, contractor and consultant. I've seen the Peter Principle at work every day for decades.

[-] -1 points by ibanker (-99) 2 years ago

48% ROE? Sounds phoney dude. try your trick elsewhere. 48% is off the charts

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

So I guess anything outside your immediate experience is "phoney" in your book. So much for the reasonable 1%er.

And if you think 48% is off the charts, you haven't been hanging around hedge funds or high-frequency trading for very long. In fact, I suspect you have no direct financial services experience at all and are just hoping nobody will notice. Well, good luck with that. Count me out.

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Not lifetime, that's my best year. My bad. But that's hardly the only thing I said in that comment.

[-] 0 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

i tried hiring a guy with 20 years experience in my field as a manager. He didnt tell me what he really meant to say was, "he was good at yelling at people to get things done but when it came time for him to do anything, whatever he touched went to shit. He about drove me out of business, even sabatoged some of my customers, to generate a service call, but they figured it out, and I lost some big customers. Wow, didnt know there were people like that out there, and his kids are friends with my kids. I forked over 20 bucks an hour to, during a time when people were layed off. Now I distrust people even more. Boy did I learn my lesson. People without a job are usually worthless to begin with.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

What he also didn't tell you , was that you are a backrider. But you already knew didn't you ;-/

[-] 0 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

Lets get one thing straight: u assume i make a profit when i hire, but in fact, i have always lost money, and can prove it in my books, so to me employees are just my way of giving to charity.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Gotcha your highness.

[-] -1 points by ibanker (-99) 2 years ago

exactly, the job market knows how to value people. So if does not have a job, there would be good reasons behind it. And the most likely reason in incompetence.

[-] 3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Profit sharing makes the most sense, then the employees have a stake in the company. And that share should be an equal share. Every person is essential for that company to operate, especially the low wage earners.

[-] -2 points by ibanker (-99) 2 years ago

Especially the low wage earners? Seriously? So according to you the guy who delivers pizza to me is more important than the CEO of Pizza hut? Wow.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Not more important, just as important. A worker bee is as essential to a healthy beehive as the queen bee. Just because there are more workers than the Queen does not make them less valuable.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

I didn't know you felt this way. I certainly agree with you. We are all equally valuable.

[-] -3 points by ibanker (-99) 2 years ago

It actually does. Not every employee (even those at the same pay grade or designation) are equally valuable. All employees are equal, some are just more equal than others.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

If profits go up it does not matter if the workers put out more effort - they did and are doing the job. Where do executives get off claiming all the gravy of a team effort. Profits are up work is getting done. Simply put the employee is part of the company and should benefit from the company's success.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

The man who does the actual work always gets Paid less.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yeah go figure. Whats up with that?

[-] 2 points by Recycleman (102) 2 years ago

Ask it a little different. When the CEO gets millions in bonus. Does his production increase by millions. If instead the millions was split between all employees would production increase across the board. Would the CEO be happy with a equal share?

[-] 2 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

No they don't money is usually the last incentive workers want as a reward for the work they have put out. Most would rather see benefits or a recognition to what they have done. Most humans if following the Theory Y. We see that workers want to work and like to work.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

It's about time you contributed something intelligent.

I agree, most people don't want to sit around all day and do nothing. They would rather enjoy being involved in something of interest with satisfaction as a reward.

Which was why I had advocated an economic system of equal pay. Where everyone had opportunity.

[-] 2 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

Yes they would like rewards for their work but this doesn't mean that all rewards should be equal. The market should decided the rewards and nothing more on the job level. I agree everyone should have an opportunity to work and to get the same educations. All of this takes effort and effort is should decide where people are placed.

Ive been saying the same thing the whole time. Read my friend Read

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

tech has made an end run round niche habit

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

explain more please

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

future shock

humans are creatures of habit

It is productive to keep doing what works

however, tech requires change in habit

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

very interesting

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

The 5% pay increase is not a raise if it does not keep up with inflation. If a loaf of bread costs 10% more, that 5% raise still leaves you further behind.

[-] 2 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

You're right, human beings are just grist for the mill. The only way to approach this issue is from the point of view of production and profit.

[-] 2 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

I worked on this. First off, most of your employees have little ability to increase the productivity of the company: meaning your earnings. So measuring their productivity is very difficult if not nearly impossible. You can survey them, of course, but that's pretty useless data. What you want is to make more money and you will have to wait to see if your changes are working.

Employees will work harder if they feel appreciated. Money helps if they haven't gotten a raise in a while, especially if the company is doing well. But often employees want better benefits, more training opportunities (with advancement opprotunites-promote from within) more time off/ more flex-time and more ability to participate in decision making processes so they can build leadership skills and build friendships across departments. Integration and sharing knowledge across departments helps increase efficiency of a company if you can get people to do it. That's my best suggestion.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

The point I was intending with this post, there seems to be a consensus that agrees people work harder if they are paid more. Personally I don't see it.

If an automaker produced a hundred cars per day and gave all employees a ten percent raise would they than produce one hundred and ten cars per day ? Not likely ...

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

Increases in benefits are a type of pay raise. Salary raises are not usually as effective. Pay cuts and benefits cuts and especially lay-offs are well known to decrease productivity. I believe the reason is benefits make the employees feel more appreciated and secure. Health benefits are always expensive, but there are other benefits a company can provide fairly cheaply-HSA, IRA's, credit counseling and ID theft protection, dry cleaning, in house excercise facilities, pre=paid legal, ect. Increasing factory production can be accomplished by warming up/stretching the workers in the morning. Lol. Really. It reduces injuries too. You have to pay someone to do that, so its a benefit-pay increase.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

How do you explain to the employee why the CEO gets 400x what they get !

[-] -1 points by ibanker (-99) 2 years ago

"If an airplanes produced a hundred cars per day" ? Are you high or just plain stupid?

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Smartphones sometimes insert what it thinks is the correct spelling of a word and occasionally guesses wrong.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Thanks corrected. Automaker. Apple iPod wrote airplane. ?

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Employees have a significant effect on earnings, perhaps more than any other single function in a corporation. Consider the limits: produce nothing and the company loses money, and fires the employee. Increase production in the same period and earnings go up. Employees can increase production by numerous means at their disposal including: decrease scrap, reduce cycle time, innovation, better tools, process controls, delivery focus, just to name a few. Labor is typically a company's largest expense and most valuable asset.

[-] 4 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

They can't affect earnings unless they are given the tools to do so AND each employee has a different role, so there's no one way to measure their "productivity" in a scientific way. You have to ask them what they do and then extrapolate. For example, how does your secretary make you money? He creates a pleasant customer service experience and helps create repeat business. He also saves the executive from doing paper work, so that he can find more clients. Ok, now go measure that. It's impossible.

[-] -2 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I measure employee productivity every day. I can tell you exactly how much more my night shift produces vs the day shift (mainly because there are not a lot of engineers and managers around to meddle). Some of the best productivity improvements (tools, process controls, etc.) come from the folks that have to work with the production continually. They have better focus.

The effort today is to flow as much responsibility to the folks that can have the greatest effect on the improvement. Give employees as much responsibility for the outcome as possible. As a benefit it makes their job more interesting and consequently they become more enthusiastic about company performance.

Re. the secretary: all employee goals must be measurable, achievable, realistic, and timely. You just need good managers (which also must have goals). A secretary has tasks, measure them and continually improve. Many companies use customer satisfaction polls for this purpose.

[-] 3 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

Customer service polls? Awful. No good. Your ratings are based on the preconceived expectations of the customer, not on the service provided. ...as you know...

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

In the end isn't it the the preconcieved expectations of the customer that actually matter? Sure some customers are not realistic, but generally speaking if they have their expectations met or exceeded then they tend to be happy and come back.

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

Yes, they do and that's what they should be used for, not for making Continuous Quality Improvement judgments about your secretary.

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

lol since you put it that way... maybe they should be ISO 9000 certified too.

[-] -1 points by ibanker (-99) 2 years ago

increasing production and increasing earnings are two different things.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

When they produce more in the same amount of time my margins go up.

[-] -1 points by ibanker (-99) 2 years ago

provided u can sell the extra production.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I would not have issed the sales order if i did not have a PO from my customer.

[-] -1 points by ibanker (-99) 2 years ago

so u think thats how production decisions are taken, u first get an order from a customer and then u start production? really. good for you

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I build less than 10% of my annual production for stock. Everything else is build to order. This requires reliable suppliers and short production cycle times.

[-] -1 points by ibanker (-99) 2 years ago

Thats what you do and that could be because

  1. the nature of your business is such. For example Ferrari starts making a car only when it gets an order

  2. You have exceptional demand forecasting ability

  3. You have very little demand

But not all businesses are similar. What you are talking about is called demand chasing. And then there is also level production and then there is a hybrid between demand chasing and level production.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Agreed. What do you think about the Amazon model? They make about $ 0.01 on the dollar in exchange for speedy delivery, low prices, and convenience.

[-] -2 points by ibanker (-99) 2 years ago

What do I think? Their stock price, EPS and of course revenues speak for it. They are doing roaring business.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I wonder if it sustainable? Margins are tiny. They spend 6$ billion on warehouse operations and I recently read that they are moving from human "pickers" to robots in order to cut costs. Mother Jones did not help.

http://dvice.com/archives/2012/03/meet-amazons-li.php

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/03/21/bloomberg_articlesM0V3HG6JTSEA01-M17O5.DTL

http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/mac-mcclelland-free-online-shipping-warehouses-labor?page=4

[-] -1 points by ibanker (-99) 2 years ago

Well that is why they have also forayed into cloud services (AWS), online books and recently tablets.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I guess they are the Wal -Mart of cyber space. Seems ripe for smaller players with niche products and services to nibble at the edges. And they are pretty big edges.

Sounds like a business opportunity.

[-] -1 points by ibanker (-99) 2 years ago

The problem for niche players would be logistics and supply chain. Fedex wont be fast or cost efficient enough for niche players.

[-] 1 points by elf3 (2240) 2 years ago

Friendly Observer B has been on here for a while - but you never address movement issues only subsets. Here is the core of our movement - (not that your issues aren't important they are valid as well but not even a consideration until we challenge the real issues at hand) I would like to ask you why you aren't discussing this:The goal of Occupy Wall Street is to spread awareness that one percent of the world's population is hording the planet's natural abundance for themselves, creating scarcity and driving a false sense of demand for the rest of the entire population as well as paying off world governments to carry forth their plans and protect them and propagandize on their behalf. We want to stop this. We want to prevent Wall Street from creating an anarchic breakdown of our entire planet's financial systems and causing death and destruction in the process; as we have already seen in the third worlds and communistic totalitarian regimes. We are here because we care about you and your family. We are the voice of reason, trust, and stability. (I don't have a degree - instead I bought land to avoid paying a landlord the over-inflated rents created by the one percent.) A degree doesn't get you a career by the way / lucky if it gets you a job. And that will only last 5 years until they downsize again to increase profit margins and reduce wages, and create job scarcity. Scarcity is the key word. http://occupywallst.org/forum/real-estate-4-ransom-global-property-speculation-a/ http://occupywallst.org/forum/fiefdom-in-america-land-discounts-for-the-wealthy-/

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTKQ-ks-Wv9a_qOo_RYZ0O9OWCdtuh-Jn2OTfCFE7WqiC-ZAsC80w

q=homelessness+in+america&hl=en&rlz=1C1GGGE_enUS346US346&prmd=imvnsb&source=lnms&tbm=isch&ei=XLhzT_XJGqfZ0QH0kMH_Ag&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=2&ved=0CCEQ_AUoAQ&biw=1536&bih=772 http://www.google.com/search?q=starvation&hl=en&rlz=1C1GGGE_enUS346US346&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&ei=VbpzT9S2HYmJgwe8iME0&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=2&ved=0CBQQ_AUoAQ&biw=1536&bih=772

We are here to turn Corporatism back to Capitalism and prevent the atrocities that the Wall Street Monopoly system has created. Kill the Monopolies (instead of innocent human beings.) Destroy and Disband.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

We, the working class, should take responsibility for fucking up the system and be proud of it. Why give the capitalists the credit? It's their system after all. It's OUR responsibility to fuck it up if we don't want to be whores to capital.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

We should repair the system, not throw a wrench in it.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Well, that really is the difference between reform and revolution and as a movement OWS is divided on the issue, or at least it hasn't really addressed it. That is, do we want to reform capitalism or do we want to overthrow it? I don't think it is all that important for the movement to make a decision on that right now. Right now it is enough to say NO! BASTA! to those in control. As the movement grows and matures will be time enough for it to make decisions about that, though right now just how such questions will ultimately be decided will, to a considerable degree depend on the kind of leadership it has in the intervening period and right now the dominant leadership tends to be anarchist and anarchistic or at least strongly influenced by the anarchist intellectual tradition.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Overthrowing capitalism and replacing with Anarchism are two ideas that will defeat Occupy. It will be difficult enough to enact meaningful campaign finance reform even though support for it is broad based.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

The above constructs are an abstraction. The fact is (and this is not an abstraction but a concrete fact) the initiators of OWS are strongly influenced by the anarchist intellectual tradition. So far at least they have also been its most effective organizers. It is they that have organized virtually all of OWSs demonstrations. It is they who effectively reached out to organized labor creating the first alliance between organized labor and the radical intelligentcia since the 1940s and whether or not the other social movements are aware of it or not it is those anarchists and their vision which has inspired and energized virtually every other social movement including labor, civil rights, the wormens movement, gay rights, the environmental movement and every other movement.

Meanwhile, the liberal activists in OWS have basically done little except carp about the notion that anarchist leadership will get us nowhere. I am personally not an anarchist and I have a lot of criticisms of anarchism as a political philosophy, but that is my perception as someone who has been a fairly active part time participant in OWS.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

It's a damned if we do damned if we don't situation.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

It's only damned if you don't if you are wedded to capitalism.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

It is a forced wedding.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

It's only a forced wedding if we let it be. I'm not saying that organizing the majority is an easy task, but it is a simple task.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

I've lowered my employee's pay and find he is much more productive when he can barely pay his bills. But the promise to raise it back where it was when we become profitable is still there.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

I stopped donating to OWS but they are still not doing anything !

[-] 1 points by elf3 (2240) 2 years ago

By the time they get the raise - gas, insurance, and food have gone up to even the cost - it's like a dog chasing it's tail

give more flex time - it will be more appreciated

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

I am planning to cap sales profit. Will that help ?

[-] 1 points by elf3 (2240) 2 years ago

If you're looking for a solution to this crisis look here: these are the questions we need to be asking : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30884.htm

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Sorry , I won't open links on this site. Besides I already have the solution !

[-] 1 points by elf3 (2240) 2 years ago

It's safe click it in a new window if anything has a virus your program should catch it - I never had problems - I think hackers are on our side I wouldn't suggest it if it wasn't - plus I'm paranoid about that but I lived to post another tale ... the film is important so here is the title Real Estate 4 Ransom

Video Documentary

Real Estate 4 Ransom is a documentary about global property speculation and its impact on the economy. The film considers the changing motivations behind property investment and challenges the notion that the Global Financial Crisis was caused by bank lending alone.

Shot over 5 years, the film focuses an economics lens on many of the big picture issues world politics are grappling to deal with. The 40 min documentary looks at whether genuine freedom has been delivered by the democratic system.

We investigate the inefficiencies of the economic system and the impact this has on potential homeowners and small businesses. The documentary argues that with a simpler tax system, entrepreneurs have a better chance to succeed and the average Australian has a better chance of owning their own home.

What role did real estate play in the crashing of the global economy?

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

The problem with these documentaries, they won't talk a out the " elephant in the room ". I am willing to bet there is no mention of placing a cap on profits?

[-] 1 points by elf3 (2240) 2 years ago

but profits aren't the problem - a fixed tax system is the problem - taxes are determining who should succeed and how much and shifting the burden onto the working class instead of creating equality and a fair shot. Where do the caps go ? Do you divy it amogst the workers? For instance I'm just a secretary in my company - what do I deserve - do I deserve as much as the workhorses - does the orderly deserve as much as the nurse? Who determines this? Ordinarily in a free market (not what we have anymore) this would fix itself and set itself - but we have no free market we have a system cherry picking who will succeed - the film brought up an interesting point - taxes on property are fair because land always increases in value - so even if your're paying tax on it you will still profit if you don't you will sell it and others will be able to buy it at a lower cost. If you decide to horde land only to fix the market you'll be punished for destroying the free market by having to pay more tax on it. So you wouldn't have this odd situation where one percent of the population is determining and creating the market (because they do own almost all the land and horde it to fix prices and fix the market) which affects the entire economy. It's a fixed market system we have now (so is profit caps) we need to unfix it - taxing land instead of wages is a real solution (not fixing the market by fixing the market as profit caps would do.) Right now the rich are not taxed on their land - they are treated as capital gains investments and they get to defer paying taxes if they invest it in property (capital gains investments) and if they do pay tax on it when they sell or "liquidate it" they get to claim a lower tax rate on the income earned from hording land and thereby fixing the market by causing prices to go up, rents to go up, and a lesser amount of pay to go to employees or entrepeneurship. This was a very innovative and smart documentary for anyone looking to a solution and who hates the system we are currently serving.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Taxes vs profit cap.

If I am a retailer and pay tax on my profits I will raise the price until the profit I desire after tax is met. Therefore the burden goes on the buyer. Plus slows down sales reducing demand on the manufacturer.

If my profit margin is capped than I cannot raise the price beyond the allowable cap. This ensures the buyer prices will remain within reach, plus increase sales creating demand and jobs.

The stimulation of sales will generate tax revenue.

[-] 1 points by elf3 (2240) 2 years ago

If you are a retailer and your company is doing well - be sure your rent will go up. Most landlords are surprisingly aware of profits. This will ensure the prices will go up and the buyer just won't buy and the store will go out of business. No matter to the landlord he gets to claim a profit loss to use against his realty trust corporation and 14 other business that are tied in with it. It's legal extortion - "well you can always move locations if you don't like the increase. Yes and kill your business. It's legal extortion. There go the jobs, taxes for the community, and another property sits empty with a for lease sign on it for a year with a price too high to rent but yet creating market scarcity for the location so that when it finally does rent he makes out yet again.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

You paint a bleak picture.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

when a company stock price increases do the workers get a raise? or does that money only profit stock holders?

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

When prices increase for products on the shelves, is there an equivalent improvement in product quality or is it pretty much the same stuff after the price hike?

[-] 3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

No, quality is always on downward spiral. They gradually reduce quality so people don't notice. Profit before quality.

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

some are even trickier. They keep the box the same size and just reduce the net weight of the contents. :p

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Haven't seen that one. Which companies are doing it?

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

Candy companies will do it, like if the price of chocolate rises. Rather than shrink the packaging, some will just decrease the product rather than increase price.

[-] 0 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 2 years ago

Raises aren't given in hopes of increasing production, raises are given to reward those who are already producing more.

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Who knows? Who cares? We are all whores to capital. I hope productivity goes DOWN as wages go up. I say fuck um! We need to stop blaming Wall Street for the crisis in capitalism. It's OUR fault and we should be proud of it. Bring the who fucking dirty rotten system down!

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

But WallStreet created the crisis in capitalism.

Why not blame them?

If a traders pay went up 400%, did he really create 400% more of any tangible product?

Nope, he didn't. He skimmed 400% off of those products and labor.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

No actually our demands for more than what capitalism is able to provide is actually what created the crisis and we should keep demanding more, more, more until we bring the whole fucking system down!

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

What demand is it you think I made?

Wanting to get paid for actual work done, while they backride for profit, and add nothing?

Will you asnswer the question?

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I wasn't referring to your personal demands. I was referring to the general demands of the working class on the system and how they contribute to a systemic crisis. I think we should demand more than the system is capable of providing. Bring the whole fucking thing down I say. And own it. I mean take responsibility for bringing it down in the same way that queers now take responsibility for their queerness and freaks for their freakiness.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Questions are difficult for you?

I'm sorry. I didn't know.

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

No, but non sequitors are amusing, especially when our frames of reference are like ships passing in the night.

[-] -2 points by ibanker (-99) 2 years ago

still continuing with your dumbassery, eh? Traders do not create tangible products but we still do create products and provide a service. Not all products have to be tangible. Dumbass

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

What value do add to any tangible product? None.

You have to make stuff up about how valuable you are.

All wealth stems from labor, not money shuffling.

What actual product isn't tangible?

[-] -3 points by ibanker (-99) 2 years ago

Money shuffling? I see. Well I won't bother to explain it to you. It is too late to teach an old fool new tricks.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I learn things each and every day............:)

It's you who fails to respond.

Was that part of your training?

It's you who falls back on insults.

It's you who fails to accurately explain yourself.

All the while pretending how "smart" you are.

[-] -3 points by ibanker (-99) 2 years ago

You may sure learn everyday but the way I see it your pace of learning is pathetically slow. As for response, I do not find it useful to respond to fools with logical arguments. For fools, I have always had only insults.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Spoken like a guy who's job can be better done by chimps.

Have you always been so full of yourself that you have to insult people to feel smart?

Please refrain from calling anyone else pathetic.

As you have been unable to explain yourself.

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

I agree , profit adds nothing tangible.

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Why should we? We are all whores to capital. Why the fuck should we be enthusiastic about it? Fuck um. I say get as much money as we can and work as little as possible for it until we bring the whole rotten system down.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

That's exactly what the 1% are doing to us.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Many share the same sentiment.

[-] -1 points by ibanker (-99) 2 years ago

And you guys discussing this shit? This entire argument is stupid to begin with. The premise is flawed. Guess you guys have a lot of free time and very little intelligence

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

The premise is not flawed. The idea of having a debt from creating work is flawed. Working creates a product , not a debt.

[-] -1 points by ibanker (-99) 2 years ago

oh shut that rhetoric please. Take it to some stupid occutard who would listen. You dont know the first thing about employee compensation

[-] -1 points by jewieboy (1) 2 years ago

Hell No

[-] -1 points by mediaauditr (-88) 2 years ago

When you are 100% commission in sales, money is a motivator. It's the only motivator. No one will work for crumbs. Either you earn or your don't. You have food on your table or you don't. In the case of a salaried position, it depends if the pay raise is a result of increased responsibility. If its for seniority. No, it won't encourage the employee to produce more. But it will motivate rookie employees to work harder because they see benefits to performing well and gaining seniority.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Even with a cap on profits the salesman will be motivated to sell on commission. And with prices lowered due to the cap he will have more buyers.

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

remains the same. employees feel entitled to the increase.

[-] 3 points by RayLansing (99) 2 years ago

I could say the same about the management/executives. Aren't they a prime example of self entitlement on a much larger scale.

[-] -3 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

how are they entitled? they get recruited for the job by their piers and are accountable to the shareholders. Just like anyone else - you build a life of credibility. How about Peyton Manning's new contract? 96M for 5 years. Why havent you mentioned that instead of the executives?

[-] 4 points by RayLansing (99) 2 years ago

Nice attempt to go off tangent. You are the one linking salaries to production so where is the direct correlation of production compared to their giant salaries and bonuses? Why haven't you discussed this instead of the lower employees? Double standards?

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

How is that off on a tangent? What's the difference between a CEO's compensation & Peyton Manning's? I think the guy selling hot dogs in the stands should be up in arms over Peyton's compensation. The hot dog vendor is working hard too no?

[-] 2 points by RayLansing (99) 2 years ago

Why blame workers for production and not the executives? Oh right, you enjoy guzzling cum of CEO's over an internet forum. People like you defend the epitome of self entitlement and then call others to be self entitled. What a farce you are.

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

I'm not BLAMING anyone. Blame for what? You still havnt told me the difference between Peyton Mannings 96 million & your hated CEO's what is the difference?

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Mr. Manning has to do a lot hard training, and perform live, in front of millions of people.

Every time he goes on the field, he risks his career to painful psychical injuries.

The people that own the team will pay him, and everyone else on the team, and still be making tons 'o' cash.

Your talking apples and oranges, compared to a lazy money shuffler.

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

so the CEO of a fortune 500 company has no skills or abilities yet they pay them a lot of money because? Interesting view on things.

[-] 2 points by RayLansing (99) 2 years ago

"remains the same. employees feel entitled to the increase." How is guzzling the cum of CEOs over the internet going for ya?

"so the CEO of a fortune 500 company has no skills or abilities" Your sweeping generalization of all CEOs to be positive once again shows what a joke you are.

"yet they pay them a lot of money because?" Do you really need an answer to that? Here is a hint: epitome of self entitlement.

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

So Peyton Manning is paid 96 million because of his ability to make money for the organization & the CEO is paid because he's a nice guy? OK - run with that - see how far it gets you.

[-] 2 points by RayLansing (99) 2 years ago

CEO is paid because he's a nice guy? Spoken like a true CEO cum guzzler. Ever think about the phrase "con artist"? Now apply that to your same tired old rebuttal of why they are paid so much. If you can't put 1 and 1 together here, you're nothing more than an indoctrinated ass kisser who defends self entitlement.

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

So OWS is seeking to eliminate con artists from the world LOL! Thank you - you just made my case on all fronts

[-] 2 points by RayLansing (99) 2 years ago

And you seek to defend these self entitled con artists like a true cum guzzler. One would hope you are well compensated for drinking so much jizz from the fat cats. Thank you - you just made my case on all fronts.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/23/us-insight-bankers-idUSTRE81M1S420120223

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

reality trumps fantasy.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

The more important question is.

Why are you so hung up on Peyton Manning?

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

I'm not hung up on Manning or anyone else. I am trying to get you to tell me what the difference is & you cant because your argument is irrational & based on emotion not reason.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

what's your point again? Obviously you have the maturity of an eighth grader so maybe you can spoon feed it to me. If there is fraud there is fraud they will be dealt with by the law. We are debating the difference between pro sports compensation & that of the CEO. Stay focused.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I gave you a response. You just refused to consider it and carried on with your own low information argument, that repeats itself over and over and over................and over.

As a rebuttal question, let me ask you this.

What tangible value has WallStreet added to any tangible product produced by those corporations it owns?

[-] 3 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

wall street harvests all the value out of a product, they don't add to it .

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

you gave gibberish so we can end it here. good luck to you

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

They pretty much pay themselves. If not, they are paid for their level of pleonexia.

[-] 4 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

executives make 400 times the worker thats why. they should carry 400 percent more resposibility.. they do not.. workers are blamed for production

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

What's your real name? Where do you work?

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

that information is relevant how?

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

I want to know who is hiding behind that keyboard.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

you go first. That is if you want to continue to distract from the real issue.

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

Mike Huttman. Google me.

Your turn. Or are you a coward?

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

how do I know you are telling me the truth? and how is it relevant? P.S. All I came up with was Mike Huffman. - Yet another distraction.

[-] 2 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Mike+Huttman

How would I know you aren't telling me the truth either?

Its relevant because I want to know where you are from, what you do, and what caused you to have your deluded viewpoints. So are you going to be a coward and hide behind that keyboard, or step up and show who you really are?

[-] -3 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

yea - I am a coward. Tell me how it is relevant to the discussion - you provided false info anyway so whats the point

[-] 2 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

Its relevant because you can't prove that you're not paid by somebody to troll this site.

My info is real. You're the one who has to prove that it isn't.

Coward.

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

yor info is real hahaha! I googled mike huttman and all that came up was mike huffman . OK - I've wasted enough time here. you think the only way people would oppose your views is if they are paid lol! thats the most hysterical thing I've ever heard. Delusions of grandeur at it's finest lol!

[-] 2 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

You're a liar, and everyone who Googles "Mike Huttman" will see exactly why:

Mike Huttman Official Site www.mikehuttman.com/ Site Logo. Programming, WebDev, Audio, Contact. DJ, Programmer. Web Dev, Contact.

Mike Huttman - No Pants Dance [Funky/Jacking House/Electro ... www.tranceaddict.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=569408... Jul 6, 2010 – Mike Huttman - No Pants Dance [Funky/Jacking House/Electro House/K-Pop]. And now for something completely different: ... DJ Mike Huttman's sounds on SoundCloud - Create, record and ... soundcloud.com/dj-mike-huttman DJ Mike Huttman Mike Huttman, Hickory, United States. Follow Send message Share a track Share. Facebook Twitter Tumblr Email WordPress StumbleUpon ...

Mike Huttman | LinkedIn www.linkedin.com/in/mikehuttman Hickory/Lenoir, North Carolina Area - Web Developer and Computer Programmer View Mike Huttman's professional profile on LinkedIn. LinkedIn is the world's largest business network, helping professionals like Mike Huttman discover inside ...

Mike Huttman | Facebook en-gb.facebook.com/.../Mike-Huttman/1000004442... - United Kingdom Mike Huttman is on Facebook. Join Facebook to connect with Mike Huttman and others you may know. Facebook gives people the power to share and makes ...

Mike Huttman www.thenationalgeneralassembly.org/mike-huttman Mike Huttman. My stance can be summed up in two words: People First. My political motivations stem from the common sense that we should be creating laws ...

Naya Burn by Mike Huttman - MTGdecks.net, need netdecks? We ... www.mtgdecks.net/decks/view/4907/iframe

Magic the Gathering netdecks Database. Naya Burn by Mike Huttman.

I know that you are trolling these boards. I have seen all of your posts. You are a cancer on this forum. I will keep at you until you leave.

[-] -3 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

nice - I saw your website but your name didnt come up on google. congratulations ! Now - how is it I am a cancer for disagreeing with you?

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

My name does come up on Google. You have to spell it correctly...

You're a cancer on these boards. I have never seen you offer any constructive criticism, just trolling. No one wants you here.

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

The difference between me and you, Dell, is that I actually care about other people. I find it equally sad and hilarious that so-called "Christians" care less about their fellow humans than this non-believer.

I don't need more money to live a better life. I'm already more wealthy than you and all of your cohorts combined. You can be too, but you need to see the error in your ways. Its not too late.

Put down your bible, open your eyes, and see for yourself what is happening around you. Don't listen to Fox News, go out on the street and listen to real people. Stop reading the billboards, read the people's faces and see who is being sincere and who is pushing you into a life of mediocre conformity. You don't have to be a sheep, Dell. Wake up!

[-] -3 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

constructive criticism - look in the mirror lol ! this is the most toxic negative environment I've ever seen !!! Here's some constructive criticism. Stop worrying about everything you cant control & worry about what you are doing to improve your own life. What's the issue - you want to have more money to live a better life right?

[+] -4 points by ibanker (-99) 2 years ago

Only someone who does not understand the first thing about employee compensation and business in general would make such a stupid statement. And OWS is full of such fools.

[-] 1 points by Recycleman (102) 2 years ago

It is a good question. I put it to the test as a general manager. I took a position managing a production plant. The plant was budgeted to lose $300,000 for the year. I sat down with all employees and gave them a business plan based on returning the plant to profit. The rewards were as followed I gave 10% raises to all employees except for those that took on more then their work load. Then those that worked extra got additional raises. A bonus for all employees after 4th quarter with a max of $1000 cash taxed up. They earned max $1000 every year This was to all employees that had never received bonus with their position. We followed this plan for 5 years.

Durring the same time 9 other plants in the division had the following results

Budgeted losses, actual losses for all 9 all 5 years

Our plant instead turner to profit in 3 months and never lost money again. Not only did we profit. We led the corp ROCC We led ROI Highest profit after tax bases on investment 5 divisional plant of the year 1 corperate plant of the year Spent the most on safety per person Most updated equiptment and service Highest score of customer appreciation survey ever by survey company. Blind survey.

The bonus I approved actually cost me part of my bonus due to a cost overage on P&L About $2500 out of my pocket.

My returns came back with higher then normal raises myself.

I gave the corp high profits and the employees higher wages

So if you base the expectations on results and give higher then normal increases. Then yes.