quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux



Grace, if we could simply eliminate the word 'fair' from our vocabulary, I think it would go a long way toward eliminating this kind of thinking.

One has to wonder why you are not in favor of fair play?
We have rules for football that describe what is fair and what is not.
We have the constitution to tell us what is fair..ie:no fair killing one another.

When someone complains it isn't fair - its always germane to say - "fair to who?"

Since you wish to do away with fairness then it matters not.

Is it "fair" when unions slash tires, and use force or the threat of force to extract higher wages? I don't think so.

Unions withold their labor in order to extract higher wages....if management or labor engages in illegal behavior that is why there are cops.



Is it fair for American airlines employees to call in sick, or to have work slow downs in order to get better contracts?
In a country without slavery any behavior that is allowed by the contract is legal.

Fair has nothing to do with life, or business.

I take it from this statement that you are not a christian or an american constitutionalist. If one reads the federalist papers and the anti federalist papers we find constant references to fairness....christians never shut up about being fair. Your candor in pointing out your disgust at the concept of fairness is to be appreciated.

Think about this - the historical average of just sticking your money in the dow jones is 16%.

You have been shown the inaccuracy of this statement.

So what they get for the hassle of risking their money setting up a business and employing people is.. LESS money.

State monopolies like the edison co., I believe, work on 5%

Edison co. is owned by shareholders.

The state doesn't own one volt.

quote:

ORIGINAL: VideoAdminChi

I will take this opportunity to remind posters that there is a Hide button, which may be better to use than risking a vacation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Think about this - the historical average of just sticking your money in the dow jones is 16%. So what they get for the hassle of risking their money setting up a business and employing people is.. LESS money.

Not true. Historically the average is under 12% and more recently lower than that.
http://blog.petetheplanner.com/what-rate-of-return-should-you-expect-on-your-investments
And anyone who puts there money in the Dow or any stock fund and expects to hit the market average is nuts. The fund always takes a cut which comes directly out of your earnings. So figure on less than 7%. Which is very close to the historic profit margins for businesses.
And yes it is a matter of fairness for an employer to pass on some of the gains in productivity by his employees to his employees.

Is it also a matter of fairness for an employer to pass on some of the gains in productivity by the process to his employees, too?

Is it not the employees that implement the process?

Again. Its not a question of fairness.

It should be a case of rational business interest. A business exists to make the owner a reasonable return on his money.
That return - more or less - is revenues minus costs.

One of those costs is labor.

GE has shown time and time again - it pays to get the best people for the job - so it pays to recruit and pay them.
Paying a good wage for a good employee is in the employer's interest.

Way to miss the point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

But, there was no risk on the part of the employee. The employer took the initiative and risked the capital.

I believe you have a mistaken understanding of the word risk. What bank will loan money to a business that they thought was "risky"?
Banks loan money on things that have a good chance of succeeding they do not invest in risky business. So what we have is an employer who has taken a business plan to a bank and the bank has decided that it is not risky so they advance the money...so puuuleeeeze give it a rest on the "employer risk" rhetoric.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

State monopolies like the edison co., I believe, work on 5%

Edison co. is owned by shareholders.

The state doesn't own one volt.

Who owns the shares is hardly relevant. The puc sets the rates and edison has no competitors...that is a monopoly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

But, there was no risk on the part of the employee. The employer took the initiative and risked the capital.

I believe you have a mistaken understanding of the word risk. What bank will loan money to a business that they thought was "risky"?
Banks loan money on things that have a good chance of succeeding they do not invest in risky business. So what we have is an employer who has taken a business plan to a bank and the bank has decided that it is not risky so they advance the money...so puuuleeeeze give it a rest on the "employer risk" rhetoric.

All business loans are risky.

Bullshit. If they were "risky" the bank would not loan money on it.

The risk is assigned via the rate you pay for the loan as well as, in many cases, upfront fees.

Those would seem to be the very devices by which the bank removes the risk from the loan

So puuuleeeeze learn something about business.

You mean that if the corporation fails the owner is not affected in his personal finances. So there is no risk and no personal responsibility.
So puuuuleeeeze....as if you did not know.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: VideoAdminChi

I will take this opportunity to remind posters that there is a Hide button, which may be better to use than risking a vacation.

Excellent device to use on Thompson.

Good advice.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Think about this - the historical average of just sticking your money in the dow jones is 16%. So what they get for the hassle of risking their money setting up a business and employing people is.. LESS money.

Not true. Historically the average is under 12% and more recently lower than that.
http://blog.petetheplanner.com/what-rate-of-return-should-you-expect-on-your-investments

And anyone who puts there money in the Dow or any stock fund and expects to hit the market average is nuts. The fund always takes a cut which comes directly out of your earnings. So figure on less than 7%. Which is very close to the historic profit margins for businesses.

And yes it is a matter of fairness for an employer to pass on some of the gains in productivity by his employees to his employees.

If the increase was caused by their distinct and specific efforts, I would agree.

And when that does occur, equally effective owners/CEO's and employers do...exactly that.

When it's not due to the distinct and specific effort of the employee, rather the employer's investment in productivity, no.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

But, there was no risk on the part of the employee. The employer took the initiative and risked the capital.

I believe you have a mistaken understanding of the word risk. What bank will loan money to a business that they thought was "risky"?
Banks loan money on things that have a good chance of succeeding they do not invest in risky business. So what we have is an employer who has taken a business plan to a bank and the bank has decided that it is not risky so they advance the money...so puuuleeeeze give it a rest on the "employer risk" rhetoric.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Think about this - the historical average of just sticking your money in the dow jones is 16%. So what they get for the hassle of risking their money setting up a business and employing people is.. LESS money.

Not true. Historically the average is under 12% and more recently lower than that.
http://blog.petetheplanner.com/what-rate-of-return-should-you-expect-on-your-investments

And anyone who puts there money in the Dow or any stock fund and expects to hit the market average is nuts. The fund always takes a cut which comes directly out of your earnings. So figure on less than 7%. Which is very close to the historic profit margins for businesses.

And yes it is a matter of fairness for an employer to pass on some of the gains in productivity by his employees to his employees.

If the increase was caused by their distinct and specific efforts, I would agree.

And when that does occur, equally effective owners/CEO's and employers do...exactly that.

When it's not due to the distinct and specific effort of the employee, rather the employer's investment in productivity, no.

I've never seen or heard of an increase in worker productivity that did not involve the worker.

Take a rather well known example. Secretaries, legal researchers and all the other workers whose job is to produce documents. Going from handwriting to typewriters and later to computers with word processing software. The employer may have bought the hardware but the worker had to use it and learn to use it well. Otherwise there would have been no productivity gain.

So should the employee share in the productivity increase or not?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Think about this - the historical average of just sticking your money in the dow jones is 16%. So what they get for the hassle of risking their money setting up a business and employing people is.. LESS money.

Not true. Historically the average is under 12% and more recently lower than that.
http://blog.petetheplanner.com/what-rate-of-return-should-you-expect-on-your-investments

And anyone who puts there money in the Dow or any stock fund and expects to hit the market average is nuts. The fund always takes a cut which comes directly out of your earnings. So figure on less than 7%. Which is very close to the historic profit margins for businesses.

And yes it is a matter of fairness for an employer to pass on some of the gains in productivity by his employees to his employees.

If the increase was caused by their distinct and specific efforts, I would agree.

And when that does occur, equally effective owners/CEO's and employers do...exactly that.

When it's not due to the distinct and specific effort of the employee, rather the employer's investment in productivity, no.

I've never seen or heard of an increase in worker productivity that did not involve the worker.

Take a rather well known example. Secretaries, legal researchers and all the other workers whose job is to produce documents. Going from handwriting to typewriters and later to computers with word processing software. The employer may have bought the hardware but the worker had to use it and learn to use it well. Otherwise there would have been no productivity gain.

So should the employee share in the productivity increase or not?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Think about this - the historical average of just sticking your money in the dow jones is 16%. So what they get for the hassle of risking their money setting up a business and employing people is.. LESS money.

Not true. Historically the average is under 12% and more recently lower than that.
http://blog.petetheplanner.com/what-rate-of-return-should-you-expect-on-your-investments

And anyone who puts there money in the Dow or any stock fund and expects to hit the market average is nuts. The fund always takes a cut which comes directly out of your earnings. So figure on less than 7%. Which is very close to the historic profit margins for businesses.

And yes it is a matter of fairness for an employer to pass on some of the gains in productivity by his employees to his employees.

If the increase was caused by their distinct and specific efforts, I would agree.

And when that does occur, equally effective owners/CEO's and employers do...exactly that.

When it's not due to the distinct and specific effort of the employee, rather the employer's investment in productivity, no.

I've never seen or heard of an increase in worker productivity that did not involve the worker.

Take a rather well known example. Secretaries, legal researchers and all the other workers whose job is to produce documents. Going from handwriting to typewriters and later to computers with word processing software. The employer may have bought the hardware but the worker had to use it and learn to use it well. Otherwise there would have been no productivity gain.

So should the employee share in the productivity increase or not?

The idea that the employee's deserve an increased salary because they learned to use a computer is flawed.

For the third time: it comes down to a business case.

You will say that yes, an employee deserves more money. But this is easy to prove false.
Suppose a company is losing hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Losing customers to a company with better products.
Should the company raise the wages of the secretaries for learning the computer? Or hire more product developers.

Once again, "fairness" is a destructive buzz word that is easily grasped and more easily tossed around.


To me, the correct answer is: You now have more skilled employees that other companies would like to hire. What amount should I pay them to retain them and to keep a happy and productive work force.

Duh.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Think about this - the historical average of just sticking your money in the dow jones is 16%. So what they get for the hassle of risking their money setting up a business and employing people is.. LESS money.

Not true. Historically the average is under 12% and more recently lower than that.
http://blog.petetheplanner.com/what-rate-of-return-should-you-expect-on-your-investments

And anyone who puts there money in the Dow or any stock fund and expects to hit the market average is nuts. The fund always takes a cut which comes directly out of your earnings. So figure on less than 7%. Which is very close to the historic profit margins for businesses.

And yes it is a matter of fairness for an employer to pass on some of the gains in productivity by his employees to his employees.

If the increase was caused by their distinct and specific efforts, I would agree.

And when that does occur, equally effective owners/CEO's and employers do...exactly that.

When it's not due to the distinct and specific effort of the employee, rather the employer's investment in productivity, no.

I've never seen or heard of an increase in worker productivity that did not involve the worker.

Take a rather well known example. Secretaries, legal researchers and all the other workers whose job is to produce documents. Going from handwriting to typewriters and later to computers with word processing software. The employer may have bought the hardware but the worker had to use it and learn to use it well. Otherwise there would have been no productivity gain.

So should the employee share in the productivity increase or not?

Perhaps you've heard of computers then.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

You have a fundamentally flawed understanding of "employer risk". Employer risk isn't when you go to the bank.

Employer risk is when you take money that you have already paid taxes on - and create a business. Your startup capitol is at risk - as well as any returns you would have normally received.


That would be your unsubstantiated opinion.
How bout you show us how many businesses have started that way vs. how many start the way I described...My proof is every business loan ever made by a bank or the sba.
Then there is the issue you failed to address from my post is the korporation thingie which shields all of thier personal assets....so once again puuuuuleeeeeze

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Think about this - the historical average of just sticking your money in the dow jones is 16%. So what they get for the hassle of risking their money setting up a business and employing people is.. LESS money.

Not true. Historically the average is under 12% and more recently lower than that.
http://blog.petetheplanner.com/what-rate-of-return-should-you-expect-on-your-investments

And anyone who puts there money in the Dow or any stock fund and expects to hit the market average is nuts. The fund always takes a cut which comes directly out of your earnings. So figure on less than 7%. Which is very close to the historic profit margins for businesses.

And yes it is a matter of fairness for an employer to pass on some of the gains in productivity by his employees to his employees.

If the increase was caused by their distinct and specific efforts, I would agree.

And when that does occur, equally effective owners/CEO's and employers do...exactly that.

When it's not due to the distinct and specific effort of the employee, rather the employer's investment in productivity, no.

I've never seen or heard of an increase in worker productivity that did not involve the worker.

Take a rather well known example. Secretaries, legal researchers and all the other workers whose job is to produce documents. Going from handwriting to typewriters and later to computers with word processing software. The employer may have bought the hardware but the worker had to use it and learn to use it well. Otherwise there would have been no productivity gain.

So should the employee share in the productivity increase or not?

The idea that the employee's deserve an increased salary because they learned to use a computer is flawed.

For the third time: it comes down to a business case.

You will say that yes, an employee deserves more money. But this is easy to prove false.
Suppose a company is losing hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Losing customers to a company with better products.
Should the company raise the wages of the secretaries for learning the computer? Or hire more product developers.

Once again, "fairness" is a destructive buzz word that is easily grasped and more easily tossed around.


To me, the correct answer is: You now have more skilled employees that other companies would like to hire. What amount should I pay them to retain them and to keep a happy and productive work force.

Duh.

Bullshit. The question is if a worker is more productive should he be paid more. The claim was that an employer might do something that caused worker productivity to increase with no input from the employee. I posted an example that is commonly used to support that thinking but the actual fact is the employer can invest in productivity enhancing machines or processes and still not get anything because the workers don't know how to use the equipment or are simply bad at it. The fact is the productivity gains are always at least partially to do with the employee and the employee should share in the productivity gains just as the employer does.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

You have a fundamentally flawed understanding of "employer risk". Employer risk isn't when you go to the bank.

Employer risk is when you take money that you have already paid taxes on - and create a business. Your startup capitol is at risk - as well as any returns you would have normally received.


That would be your unsubstantiated opinion.
How bout you show us how many businesses have started that way vs. how many start the way I described...My proof is every business loan ever made by a bank or the sba.
Then there is the issue you failed to address from my post is the korporation thingie which shields all of thier personal assets....so once again puuuuuleeeeeze

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

And I've already proven that claim false.

If a company is losing money, it needs to spend its money in areas that will earn it a return. Which may (or may not) include paying the secretaries more money.

If a company isn't losing money, it is a question of what makes sense for the business. Let me give another example.
Suppose you have a secretary. The company pays her to become a notary - something that costs $25 per year. Should the company give the secretary a $1/hr raise, even though the employee has theoretically become more valuable?

Of course not. The cost to get any other employee to be a notary would likewise be minimal. But what the employee has gained is that if the company wants to fire a secretary, they are slightly less likely to fire her. And she gains slightly greater employability if she is let go.

In other words - there are other forms of renumeration. How & if to renumerate an employee is a decision that depends on what makes sense for the business.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

And I've already proven that claim false.

If a company is losing money, it needs to spend its money in areas that will earn it a return. Which may (or may not) include paying the secretaries more money.

If a company isn't losing money, it is a question of what makes sense for the business. Let me give another example.
Suppose you have a secretary. The company pays her to become a notary - something that costs $25 per year. Should the company give the secretary a $1/hr raise, even though the employee has theoretically become more valuable?

Of course not. The cost to get any other employee to be a notary would likewise be minimal. But what the employee has gained is that if the company wants to fire a secretary, they are slightly less likely to fire her. And she gains slightly greater employability if she is let go.

In other words - there are other forms of renumeration. How & if to renumerate an employee is a decision that depends on what makes sense for the business.

Bullshit.
You keep trying to change the subject.

Once more, if an employee is more productive then that employee is entitled to share in that increase.

Even your example is wrong. If a business needs a notary they have two options, employ a notary or pay for an outside notary. If they decide to get a secretary to become a notary then they should pay that employee more since there is a hell of a lot more to being a notary than paying a $25 fee. When a notary affixes their stamp to a document that is a legal representation that the document was signed in their presence by the person whose signature appears. Which doesn't sound like a big deal until you look into the mortgage industry and the robosigning scandal.

IOW just as in all other areas you simply have no idea what you are talking about.