2012-08-16, 08:15 | Link #21 | |
Moving in circles
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 49
|
Quote:
I would qualify, though, that journalists — American journalists, especially — would do a lot better by dropping all pretence of being "champions of free speech and democracy". That's self-deception at best, and an outright lie at worst. We like to think of ourselves as storytellers but, more often than not, we're really no better than glorified gossipmongers. Once we're clear about this, that we are ultimately part of a business, there would be a lot less hand-wringing about the imminent demise of the "Fourth Estate" and more focus on what really needs to be done to save the industry and the profession. ===== Here's a little something else to get more discussion going: Why should some jobs pay so much more than others? I mean, seriously, how does one justify the millions earned by bankers and sports stars, versus what's earned by an engineer who designs and builds something that's actually useful, rather than something dubious or simply for entertainment? |
|
2012-08-16, 08:50 | Link #22 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
|
Quote:
Although engineers as a professional group may not earn large amounts, the top people in the field can earn considerable wages. For example in the car industry key technical designers have switched companies for large sums. A big problem of the free market is that it has trouble dealing with externalities: costs or benefits to third parties not incurred by either a company or its clients. Positive benefit engineers have on society is not reflected in their pay. For that reason governments in some countries subsidize technical studies, making the profession more attractive for young people. Other means a are tax breaks for tech starters etc. Same way taxes can be used to keep top earnings in check. |
|
2012-08-16, 09:04 | Link #23 | |||
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2006
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
|||
2012-08-16, 09:30 | Link #24 | |
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 36
|
Quote:
|
|
2012-08-16, 11:03 | Link #25 | ||
Moving in circles
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 49
|
Quote:
As for news aggregation, that's basic economics at work: the division and specialisation of labour. As revenues fall, newsrooms the world over are increasingly cutting back their foreign bureaus and relying on newswires like Reuters and AFP to bring in stories from abroad. What you'll find is that the Internet is forcing newsrooms to become "hyper-local", focusing more on news in the community that isn't covered by news agencies. As for information gathering and fact-checking, those are basic requirements of any newsroom. Journalism is "old" enough that the processes are more or less the same no matter where you are. I find that it comes down to individual personalities, whether or not any newsroom shines. Economics, I think, has little to do with it. Well, insofar as the pay did not deter people from becoming journalists in the first place. Quote:
One could argue that you get what you pay for, politically, in the United States, for example. |
||
2012-08-16, 12:09 | Link #26 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
|
Quote:
Management (and politics) is a different ballgame. Talent is not scarce at all but proven talent is. A bad applicant assigned to an important position could have disastrous results. The problem is that it is much harder to spot the "lemons" among applicants. Managerial performance is hard to measure directly, judgement is based on recommendations and organization performance. Organizations simple pay overly high wages in order to maximize the chance of attracting top people with large, solid track-records. The argument is that if they don't pay the highest wages only inferior candidates will apply. The wage premium paid therefore can be seen as an insurance. (I personally don't agree with this reasoning, but it happens) However, often the people who "judge" the quality of applicants come from the same social group as the applicants, creating all kinds of opportunities for nepotism and insider networks. Last edited by Bri; 2012-08-16 at 12:28. |
|
2012-08-16, 13:31 | Link #27 | ||
Moving in circles
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 49
|
Quote:
Quote:
So, while every Tom, Dick and Harry graduates hoping to become a banker or a lawyer because of the high pay, relatively fewer talented individuals go to other sectors in the economy. You get a vicious circle in those sectors starved off necessary talent. They atrophy day by day, and with less and less spending power at their disposal, they find it increasingly harder to attract the people they need. Then what? I guess this is where the society and the economy as a whole needs to decide what to keep and what to let die. On paper, a cut-and-dry affair. In practice, a wrenching issue, when you have to tell someone he doesn't have a job any more because the industry he works in is no longer competitive in that economy. |
||
2012-08-16, 13:49 | Link #28 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
|
Quote:
Quote:
Technological improvements increases the total output of an economy, which in turn increases total wealth. Financials making a profit on the markets only redistributes wealth, they don't create anything. I'm not saying finance has no important role, but it should facilitate markets and the economy by increasing efficiency. It's not a goal in itself. |
||
2012-08-16, 14:17 | Link #29 | |
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Then you further dilute the wage benchmark, underwaging the less certified but better trained individuals (known as "amateurs"......in fact with the expansion of the internet these "amateurs" perform significantly better than "certified individuals"), resulting in lower consumption > greater volume of bank loans > higher interest rates > increased CoDB + lower entrepreneurship levels > less hiring of locals, more hiring of cheaper foreign talent........it is a really vicious cycle. I think the problem lies with the desire for consumerism - as much as it is a good personal motivator for a person to work harder, sometimes it is pretty worthless to display an object of pride to other people who won't be around you when it is gone.
__________________
|
|
2012-08-16, 20:17 | Link #34 | |
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Quote:
And so are many traders......can't wait for the stock price to decrease and buy up more since Apple has a pretty strong and stable, yet recycable customer base.
__________________
|
|
2012-11-11, 16:24 | Link #35 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 28° 37', North ; 77° 13', East
Age: 34
|
Quote:
The first has to do with the fact that there's something of a fundamental gap between opinion of the wage-earner and wage-setter on whats the right wage. first (for arguments sake) i'm taking a look at wage in a broad(er) manner, including the prestige, responsibility etc. ( of course, this would imply that certain jobs attract certain types of people based on what they want out of a job). Unless both the employer and employee know that they both know exactly how good the employee is, there'll be some kind of gap between what people earn and what they think they should earn. If the employee thinks hes earning less than he should for the work he does, he'll shirk, and by shirk i mean he might work less hard, work less hours, steal money, w/e. Since finding that information out beforehand is impossible (or lets say, prohibitively expensive), you gotta enforce the rules within the organization post hiring. But then the same problem arises; how do you enforce the enforcers? Obviously, by increasing the severity of consequences, but more importantly, by linking the managers wage to the overall size, and profits of the company. The regular employees on the other hand, are paid according to the 'output' they produce. This problem is confounded for government jobs; there's no profit to peg wages, and there is at best a set of fluid goals to use as benchmarks. That was a bit of a tangent, but anyways since the management has the power to set the wages, this is one of the more popular justifications, at least in standard economic academia. Theres a lot of brain-frying stuff on corporate management models that I have little no expertise in however.. its explained a lot better in the original article, so pm me if you want to read it The other reason is often has to do with the lifetime of an employee in a firm; by paying managerial 'senior' positions higher, you increase the incentive of employees to remain and work harder to reach higher positions. Even if its only an illusion that there is that amount of vertical mobility for employees in an organization. This is all excluding the argument that managers do more for the company in terms of profitability, hence they should be paid more (its quite a weak argument) *Sigh* I guess I respect economics point of view that by modeling individuals behavior under somewhat restrictive assumptions we can extract meaning and results that otherwise wouldn't be apparent. Unfortunately, this injustice ( i guess you could call it that.. though feel free to put in any word you like) is the consequence of following a (restrictive) system based purely on mathematical selfishness, a.k.a economic effciency. Despite our best efforts, the way we are now doesn't look particularly efficient in the economic sense either. Last edited by oompa loompa; 2012-11-11 at 16:37. |
|
2012-11-11, 23:16 | Link #36 | |
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 36
|
Quote:
To get good output from employees, I think 2 ingredients are required: Solidarity and Mission. Solidarity: Employees must feel a sense of solidarity with their fellow employees, managers and the company itself. They must feel that "they are on the same team". This requires trust, trust in the idea that the company has their best interests at heart. If the company doesn't trust them, why should they trust the company? If the company will throw them away at the soonest convenience, why should they display any loyalty to it? The idea of increased pay for good performance is not about greed (good performance is rarely driven by greed, stealing money on the other hand...), it's about fairness. If I work hard and I achieve something that makes the company lots of money, is it fair that the shareholders benefit while I walk away with nothing? If this kind of thing continues the employee will feel like his work is only being exploited. However, merit based pay can often lead down a road of greed, where employees try to deceive their managers into thinking they work harder then they actually do, while downplaying how hard other employees work (as any bonus the other employee recieves is a bonus I can't get). Instead, I think all members of a particular team should all receive the same pay, and the same performance based bonus. That way it's very clear from their own paycheck that they will all succeed and fail together. If possible all employees in the entire company should have the same performance based bonus, from the highest CEO to the lowest line worker. The line worker should feel solidarity with his CEO, as should the CEO with his line worker. Now Solidarity alone isn't enough. I think you also need the organization to have a genuine sense of mission. Now it doesn't need to be saving the world (though that always helps), but the organisation does need to be permeated with the idea of customer service. That the organisation is infused with a mission to provide the very best service/product to the customer, the most efficiently, at the lowest cost. The customer should not be a walking bag of money waiting to be conned. You can see elements of what I'm talking about with certain very famous companies, for me the stand out is Toyota, their takeover the NUMMI plant in California is quite interesting. As I see it, companies begin to fail when the managers separate themselves from their employees (and even look down on them...), and employees become apathetic towards the work of the company as a whole. It's a question of motivation, rather then greed. If you create the right kind of company culture, employees will be willing to go so far as to voluntarily cut their own wages if they see the company getting in trouble. That kind of loyalty and commitment is rare in the world of fortune 500 companies... |
|
2012-11-12, 01:21 | Link #37 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 28° 37', North ; 77° 13', East
Age: 34
|
For the sake of discussion I'm going to play devils advocate and take the managers side of things
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I don't think we're morally twisted. I genuinely just think we as economists are too dumb to think up a better system. Disclaimer: If I use words like 'always', or 'never', don't take it to be binding, I'm not writing this too carefully. |
|||||
2012-11-12, 06:58 | Link #38 | |||||||
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 36
|
Quote:
Quote:
The Employees are the company. The employees in working should not be working purely for their own selfish personal advancement, but rather to further the goals of the company. The company then compensates the employees, because that is fair. Quote:
Quote:
I personally think that shareholder's faith plays much of a role in the success of a company. Rather, I would say it's a symptom, rather then a cause of problems. The failure or success of a company is in it's employees. What is a company but a group of people working towards fulfilling the needs of a set of customers? If the people aren't working to fulfill those needs, your company is paying people to do nothing. Quote:
In terms of performance based pay, I don't think the bonus should be a percentage of their wage, but an absolute quantity. I believe in lieu of other bonuses, a percentage of the net profit should be distributed equally between all employees (with the newest trainees receiving less, until they're integrated into the company). I mostly speak of industries where most of the work is skilled, however. So if a company does well, all employees will find themselves with a $4,000 bonus. Quote:
The mission is customer satisfaction, money is simply the result. Quote:
I take my queues from some very successful companies. For me, Toyota is what particularly impressed me. The reason Toyota at it's peak managed to produce such high quality cars with such efficiency is that they managed to create a sense of mission throughout the organization, whereby every level of the company was engaged in trying to continuously improve the company (the jargon for this being "Kaizen". The Toyota assembly line became incredibly efficient because every single line worker was continuously looking for ways to improve it. When problems occurred, employees weren't punished, but rather worked together to solve the problem. To get this level of motivation and commitment from employees, Toyota had to get their trust, and they did this by paying them a decent wage, paying them bonuses if they improved the line, and rarely laying off workers. If you look at it's record, Toyota has had very few plant closures and large scale layoffs. Toyota employees stand by Toyota because they know that Toyota will stand by them. They might get their wages cut in bad times, but they know Toyota will do it's best not to lay them off, instead Toyota might invest in them by putting them through training programs. Now Toyota is not perfect (and it's probably not as it good at it was at it's peak), but it shows you the power of employee participation. The contrast is GM, where management never trusted it's employees, and consequently it fell behind. Again, this program illustrates it nicely. Other successful companies with interesting management structures are Valve and Semco. |
|||||||
2012-11-12, 16:04 | Link #39 | |
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
The different interests are sometimes in contradiction with each other, so it's a balancing act. And I don't put much stock in the concept of "fairness". Too subjective. Too top down, too. (Someone somewhere deciding the specifics of what is "fair".) I prefer more peer-to-peer concepts such as "contracts" and "acceptable". |
|
2012-11-12, 17:28 | Link #40 | ||
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 36
|
Quote:
If customers no longer desire the company's services, it may as well not exist. If a company does not serve the interests of the stakeholders you refer to, the company can still go on (although it may be weakened), but if it ignores the customer it's doomed. So the purpose of shell is to serve it's customers (pretty much everyone) by providing them with oil quickly, cheaply and efficiently. The purpose of your local restaurant is to provide it's patrons with an excellent dining experience. The purpose of the restaurant is not to satisfy the waiter's desire to wait tables, or the cook's desire to cook. As for what the company is, the company is the employees, and whatever equipment and capital it has accrued. Depending on the nature of the business, the balance of company ownership will fall more towards shareholders (who own the "capital") and employees (who operate it). A fast food chain would lean more towards the shareholders, as the worker's labour is of less value then the equipment. An IT company, on the other hand, would have almost all value held by employees. The equipment is of little value compared to value of the worker's skills. Quote:
You cannot define fairness is a simple manner. A new immigrant from the Philippines will find work conditions fair that an Irishman or American would find exploitative. However so long as any degree of inequality exists within a company, eventually the worker will inevitably find his conditions unfair. It is in manager's interests to ensure that his worker's always feel that they're being treated fairly (and if you want to be manipulative, even through deception). Personally, I don't feel "fairness" is "top-down" I view it as "bottom-up". It's not managers that decide whether arrangements are fair, it's individual workers. |
||
|
|