2011-08-31, 04:34 | Link #16202 | ||
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Some U.S. firms paid more to CEOs than taxes: study Quote:
Sony, Toshiba, Hitachi to merge LCD operations
__________________
Last edited by SaintessHeart; 2011-08-31 at 04:45. |
||
2011-08-31, 06:35 | Link #16203 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
|
Quote:
|
||
2011-08-31, 08:44 | Link #16205 |
AS Oji-kun
Join Date: Nov 2006
Age: 74
|
Just to take one example of where we might find some money to pay for emergencies, how about the Navy's proposal to build 275 new ships over the next couple of decades at an average cost of $17-20 bn per year? Reducing our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan will have no effect on these costs.
__________________
|
2011-08-31, 08:54 | Link #16206 | |
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
Quote:
|
|
2011-08-31, 09:22 | Link #16207 | |
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2006
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2011-08-31, 09:41 | Link #16208 | ||
Moving in circles
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 49
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
2011-08-31, 10:08 | Link #16209 | |
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Instead, they should promote the guy who's been there for 20 years to a more senior position, like foreman, or if he has the capability, educate him up to an even more senior role. Give him career advancement. If he wants to stick to manual work, put him in more skilled tasks that require more precise and dependable work. As for the second article you linked, I agree with it. I did a cursory calculation and the American unemployed could all be employed on a decent(if not stellar) 25,000 a year wage for about a trillion dollars a year. I'm pretty sure there's enough money stirring around America's boardrooms for that... |
|
2011-08-31, 11:16 | Link #16210 | |
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2006
|
Quote:
You know that guy who washes your dishes, cleans your tables, takes your orders? All important jobs. Customer service (as horrid as it has become) is typically a low paying job that honestly isn't worth half the stress you get paid to endure. How about a career in sanitation? Not many of us think "When I grow up, I want to go door to door and empty garbage!". Yet it is an important job. I could go on, but my point here is that worth is subjective. The only "true" measure we rank the value of a paycheck to these days is what level you're in. The higher up in management, the more you make. The CEO/owner? Money baby. Is it any wonder that so many students are moving toward management and finance degrees? Why suffer as an assembly line worker for 20 years when you can coast your way to the top as a manager, and even better - in an industry where profit can be generated out of thin air? The second article is directly tied to the first. The more you cut the people who run the machine, the less inclined they are to keep it running. Eventually, the machine will be prevented from running at all. It's a sickening thought, when it comes down to it. The top 400 households in the country hold more wealth than the bottom 180 million combined. That's nearly two thirds of the country. There's oppressive regimes that have better income equality than the US. Imagine that.
__________________
|
|
2011-08-31, 11:34 | Link #16211 | |
AS Oji-kun
Join Date: Nov 2006
Age: 74
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2011-08-31, 11:50 | Link #16212 | |
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
Quote:
I (and the people from harvard in that article) are saying that workers should not be payed more simply due to seniority. It has absolutely nothing to do with how society values different kinds of work (and how wrong that may be). If two welders are producing the same quantity of welds, at the same quality, they should both be payed the same amount regardless of how long they have worked. It's fairness. I was argueing that instead of offering wage increases, companies should offer promotion to higher paid work that requires higher level of skill. |
|
2011-08-31, 12:19 | Link #16213 | ||
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2006
|
Quote:
Quote:
In principle, I might agree with you somewhat. In reality, it's hypocrisy. Hence the second article's point about the recovery being great for people who aren't in the middle and bottom rungs of a business. Ask yourself this question. Do you really think companies, having shed as much labor as possible, cut as much benefits and pay as they could, automated and made efficient as much as possible to keep as competitive as possible, have any incentive to hire back to pre-Recession levels with increased wages that make real progress toward shrinking the income gap? If that question feels too off topic, here's a more direct one. You have a job opening for a higher paid job that requires higher skill in the company. You have two employees who qualify. One just joined a year ago and does excellent work. The other joined five years ago and is equally skilled. Do you still use seniority to judge who "earns" the position? If the answer is yes, then how is that any different from simply paying one person more because of seniority (assuming all other factors are equal). If the answer is no, then seniority doesn't matter at all. What prevents an employee from job hopping the minute a better opportunity arises? Or to put it another way, how do you protect the investment of hiring an employee if another company can simply offer a better package and poach him away from you?
__________________
|
||
2011-08-31, 13:16 | Link #16214 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
If I recall, most of those ships are to replace older ones and maintain the fleet strength. The US Navy has been cut back a lot since 1990. A whole lot. (About a third in terms of combat strength if I recall correctly)
Also shipbuilding is a large industry that has been heavily on the decline.
__________________
|
2011-08-31, 14:38 | Link #16215 | ||||||
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Quote:
In fact I would argue that "seniority pay" is just as bad, because it encourages management to use a revolving door of workers, cutting them before they could "reasonably" demand a higher wage due to seniority under the current system, and it ends out meaning that they never need to pay decent wages to these revolving door staff. It also encourages a bad attitude in senior employees, they do not need to further themselves at all in order to be guaranteed higher and higher paychecks. That doesn't help them and it doesn't help the company, and the loyalty in encourages is one entirely motivated by profit motive. Quote:
Quote:
1. He has demonstrated loyalty to the company by staying with it for so long, so any investment in upskilling him will not be as likely to be lost. 2. He has a greater familiarity with the company, it's procedures, and his colleagues, so he will be better placed to do well in the company. 3. Due to the above he will have greater trust from his colleagues, and be much better placed to lead them 4. Management will have a much better idea of his competencies and qualities, and have a better idea of what he can and can't do. And the above applies equally in the reverse to the newer employee. Having such a policy still makes the long time employees feel appreciated, encourages skill advancement in the employee and more. This isn't rocket science, it's an approach used by most succesful businesses and companies. It's just about treating your employees right while expanding and giving your employees new room to grow. Quote:
Quote:
If you treat your employees well, they won't leave you. It does not nessecarily go against the profit motive either, as it's been generally shown that satisfied workers are more productive, and provide more "extraordinary" service to the company if the company is in dire need, as they are invested in the company themselves, rather than being mercenaries working for a paycheck. |
||||||
2011-09-01, 02:38 | Link #16217 |
books-eater youkai
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Betweem wisdom and insanity
|
Obama to address Congress on September 8
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...77U40T20110901
__________________
|
2011-09-01, 03:12 | Link #16218 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Suburban DC
|
Quote:
|
|
2011-09-01, 04:02 | Link #16219 | ||
Asuki-tan Kairin ↓
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Fürth (GER)
Age: 43
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||
2011-09-01, 04:18 | Link #16220 | |
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
[QUOTE=Jinto;3750587]You can only have a limited amount of people working in leading positions. Otherwise you end up with bloated micromanagement and beaucracy similar to governmental agencies (they use the model that you are proposing). But were they subjected to free market competition, they would be underperforming heavily. In part because they have too many people doing the same thing (redundancy) and have too many deciders to actually persue a consistent marketing/operations/company strategy. I am not saying that these disadvantages make such agencies inferior to free market institutions. Because these agencies do not have the tendency to save wherever they possibly can to increase profits and at the time run down their basis for operations. If you have realy important sectors that need high reliability you'ld better off not privatizing it. Because than reliability and long term stability are traded in for short term gains.
[quote] True, but there's even more scope today for less of occupations to be menial. Quote:
|
|
Tags |
current affairs, discussion, international |
|
|