Originally posted by King KandyWhat companies have done this? If you do the math the 80,000 employees make more by an order of multitude.
If the company is losing money, then they shouldn't be paying the CEO 80,000 employees worth of salary.
They all should have their pay lowered if they are losing money in the company.
Originally posted by LiberatorWhich examples are these? There should be nothing illegal in a company, and as for exploitation, a person is welcome to leave if they are abused that badly. I wouldn't put up with it in that position. Also many unions force workers to join and pay dues there at the threat of not working, so they do their exploiting too. I think some of them do it for their own good more than the "little guy".
Unions are necessary so that the big wig doesn't exploit the worker. I think this is extremely necessary and needed especially in modern times. We saw what happens when union power is diminished, it results in nothing more than extreme corporate exploitation.
I feel they had a bigger part before, but they are costly now. Either way work is becoming more globalized and they are pricing themselves out.
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
What companies have done this? If you do the math the 80,000 employees make more by an order of multitude.They all should have their pay lowered if they are losing money in the company.
But, don't you think management should get cut down, before we even think about lowering the employees pay. IMO, corporations should only start cutting pay as the last resort... all other means of cutting spending should be exhausted first.
Originally posted by King Kandy
You were the one who used the "80,000" figure, I've just continued to use it for consistencies sake...But, don't you think management should get cut down, before we even think about lowering the employees pay. IMO, corporations should only start cutting pay as the last resort... all other means of cutting spending should be exhausted first.
Well you were saying something about them making less, or that the top guy shouldn't make more, I was responding to what Blaxican said. Undeserved pay is undeserved pay, top or bottom level.
I think the fat should be cut. Useless and unneeded jobs top and bottom, jobs and pay shouldn't be around "just because".
They're all employees though, just on different levels. If a manager is not needed, they should be cut. If there are too many employees in a certain area, or they aren't producing enough, they should be cut as well.
One mistake people make in business is to cut down advertising. That is what you need to actually increase. In tough times or low economies advertising should increase, not decrease. It keeps revenue in, and it doesn't have to be super expensive to advertise either.
But yea, pay cuts need not be first. Big businesses are a lot more liberal with their spending.
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Well you were saying something about them making less, or that the top guy shouldn't make more, I was responding to what Blaxican said. Undeserved pay is undeserved pay, top or bottom level.I think the fat should be cut. Useless and unneeded jobs top and bottom, jobs and pay shouldn't be around "just because".
They're all employees though, just on different levels. If a manager is not needed, they should be cut. If there are too many employees in a certain area, or they aren't producing enough, they should be cut as well.
One mistake people make in business is to cut down advertising. That is what you need to actually increase. In tough times or low economies advertising should increase, not decrease. It keeps revenue in, and it doesn't have to be super expensive to advertise either.
But yea, pay cuts need not be first. Big businesses are a lot more liberal with their spending.
Originally posted by King KandyNot everybody, but just the ones who make the business run at a loss. If the business keeps losing money all will lose their jobs. People just aren't buying the products to have the need for so many workers.
Isn't the point of businesses to stimulate the economy by filling some need? How can they possibly do that when they are laying people off left and right?
I'd advertise first and try to gain, but if I was burning 1 billion a month in losses, some people would have to go.
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Not everybody, but just the ones who make the business run at a loss. If the business keeps losing money all will lose their jobs. People just aren't buying the products to have the need for so many workers.I'd advertise first and try to gain, but if I was burning 1 billion a month in losses, some people would have to go.
How much of a loss does a company need to be at to cut wages, in your mind?
Originally posted by King KandyHow is that a load of nonsense, if a company is losing money at a massive rate, why would you keep paying everyone the same? The reason you hired more people was because you generated the revenue from people buying your product.
That's a load of nonsense... we could have far more jobs emerge from the local community. In fact, these multinationals moving into town usually does nothing but decrease home grown economies and pay people a pittance of what they made before...How much of a loss does a company need to be at to cut wages, in your mind?
If less people are buying your product, then you have no need for so many people. If you keep more people than are necessary, eventually everyone will lose their jobs. It makes absolutely no sense to keep more people than you need at the time.
Oh and the "big evil corporation" argument. Who bought products and allowed the companies to grow? The consumer. The consumer voted with their feet. Obviously they feel that the higher prices and lower selection aren't worth it. For a smaller company to compete they have to offer a special service or knowledge with the higher price they choose. My company has tons of "competition" from lots of work that's hired and contracted illegally or from people who lost their jobs. We charge more. We also offer better quality and service. We're not smaller than the ones who do this (they tend to be newer) but the point is the same.
This "entitlement" to small shops and workers having the right to stay if they don't produce sells doesn't work in a free market environment. Consumers vote with their feet. Not to mention that the bigger companies supply many more jobs than the smaller comany did.
Originally posted by The MISTER
Is there any instance in which a monopoly is good? Do unions prevent a person from monopolizing worker standards?
Rand talks about... iirc Alcoa Steel, and how they might have had a generally beneficial monopoly, which I can expand on...
but the conditions need to be so near perfect, and the people with the monopoly need to be essentially the most altruistic business people ever (which is a really strange contradiction in Rand's work tbh), so in almost every case in reality, monopolies will be negative
Originally posted by The MISTERA few. Things like power lines, and sewer lines are monopolized to ensure efficiency. Making a new sewer line for every company that started would be pricey.
Is there any instance in which a monopoly is good? Do unions prevent a person from monopolizing worker standards?
Also some business have a very high barrier of entry that is good. Say airlines. Would you want just anybody starting an airline? It would be quite dangerous. There's a reason that it is only done by a few and it is expensive, the market fills that out.