Would You Take a Pay Cut to Save Jobs?

[F=MA]

I don't necessarly think we have forced companies to find cheaper labor. It is all about greed. If executive pay increased at the same rate as the average worker and this were occuring I would agree but it is not. Company executives moved out of the country to exploit poor workers in order to make more money for themselves and now it is hurting all of us.

I don't disagree with your assessment, but there is another way to look at it.

It is expected that performance should be rewarded in our society. That's the fundamental tenet of capitalism.

We all desire success, whether we achieve it or not. I am by no stretch of the imagination among the most successful of us, but I see a lot of people out there who would be substantially more successfull if they only possessed one or two skills they presently don't.

If your pay were dependent on your performance, would you work harder or be more creative in finding solutions to problems you are presented with?

As a shareholder, and business owner, I am willing to pay someone more if they perform at a higher level. I think we all can agree this is reasonable.

Is this greed? Perhaps, but simple economics dictates greater productivity reaps greater rewards.

Now if you or I am the C.E.O. of a company, and we find a way to increase the profitability of the operation...thus ensuring we keep our job, secure the jobs of other employees in the company who are competitive with other labor sources, enhance the value of our company to the owners (shareholders), increase the level of taxes on earnings we pay to society, and in the process reap some personal reward for it...are we not morally obligated to do so?

The executives who have moved jobs outside the country have not hurt all of us...they have hurt those of us who have allowed our skills and abilities to become stagnant as we enjoyed "La Vida Loca".

If the blame can be squarely placed 100% on the shoulders of business leaders, it requires complete abdication of our individual responsibility to increase our value and productivity, day after day.

Some of this is the classic "chicken and egg" arguement. "Company A" notices consumers will buy "Company B"'s products if these products are priced a nickle cheaper. Turns out "Company A" is paying more for labor than "Company B", so "A" lays people off, or outsources jobs. Now there are even more consumers out there looking for the cheapest price because they have less to spend.

Which came first...consumers demanding everything for nothing, or companies demanding everything for nothing?

It's an interesting philosophical question. Regardless, as individuals, we have little to no control over what the masses do. We do, however, still have some control over how we position ourselves in response, and better yet anticipation, of how the masses actions will impact us individually.

 

[runeight]

Quote:

Which came first...consumers demanding everything for nothing, or companies demanding everything for nothing?

Or the UAW wanting everything and giving up nothing.

r8

 

[Projekt]

I don't necessarly think we have forced companies to find cheaper labor. It is all about greed. If executive pay increased at the same rate as the average worker and this were occuring I would agree but it is not. Company executives moved out of the country to exploit poor workers in order to make more money for themselves and now it is hurting all of us.

Agreed..
The argument for shipping jobs overseas was one that emphasized America's growing intellectual services industries. These were to be products of the increasing number of people who are college educated and may possess higher degrees in the near future. It was thought that the lack of menial jobs would create further competition thus motivating folks to pursue more advanced education. This process was supposed to result in a high concentration of people in well paid desk jobs who would be able to easily afford products manufactured in other countries with more uneducated labor. The cycle would go to help advance the societies in the countries exploited for cheap labor.
What is seems to have done is increase profits for the companies the moved overseas/across the border and caused a lack of job opportunities in the areas vacated by the factories.

 

[Dino]

I don't disagree with your assessment, but there is another way to look at it.

It is expected that performance should be rewarded in our society. That's the fundamental tenet of capitalism.

We all desire success, whether we achieve it or not. I am by no stretch of the imagination among the most successful of us, but I see a lot of people out there who would be substantially more successfull if they only possessed one or two skills they presently don't.

If your pay were dependent on your performance, would you work harder or be more creative in finding solutions to problems you are presented with?

As a shareholder, and business owner, I am willing to pay someone more if they perform at a higher level. I think we all can agree this is reasonable.

Is this greed? Perhaps, but simple economics dictates greater productivity reaps greater rewards.

Now if you or I am the C.E.O. of a company, and we find a way to increase the profitability of the operation...thus ensuring we keep our job, secure the jobs of other employees in the company who are competitive with other labor sources, enhance the value of our company to the owners (shareholders), increase the level of taxes on earnings we pay to society, and in the process reap some personal reward for it...are we not morally obligated to do so?

The executives who have moved jobs outside the country have not hurt all of us...they have hurt those of us who have allowed our skills and abilities to become stagnant as we enjoyed "La Vida Loca".

If the blame can be squarely placed 100% on the shoulders of business leaders, it requires complete abdication of our individual responsibility to increase our value and productivity, day after day.

Some of this is the classic "chicken and egg" arguement. "Company A" notices consumers will buy "Company B"'s products if these products are priced a nickle cheaper. Turns out "Company A" is paying more for labor than "Company B", so "A" lays people off, or outsources jobs. Now there are even more consumers out there looking for the cheapest price because they have less to spend.

Which came first...consumers demanding everything for nothing, or companies demanding everything for nothing?

It's an interesting philosophical question. Regardless, as individuals, we have little to no control over what the masses do. We do, however, still have some control over how we position ourselves in response, and better yet anticipation, of how the masses actions will impact us individually.

Excellent points.

The only comment I have pertains to:

"It is expected that performance should be rewarded in our society. That's the fundamental tenet of capitalism."

I agree with this, the problem starts when the reward is not equally distributed. Now before Bogus starts running around screaming socialism let me explain. If a company, through hard work by it's employees makes a 20% profit shouldn't everyone involved benefit? Instead what we have seen is the executive management reap the benefits through astronomical pay increases while only giving minimal pay increases to the average worker. To further add to that, companies move to poor countries so they can pay workers even less while still making a profit and lining the pockets of the executive management.

As for adding to an individuals skill base, I absolutely agree. Everyone needs to continue learning their entire lives.

 

[runeight]

Quote:

Bogus starts running around screaming socialism

Were already there. Socialist Housing didn't work huh?

Thank you Barney Frank D-MA

r8

 

[Dino]

I don't disagree with your assessment, but there is another way to look at it.

It is expected that performance should be rewarded in our society. That's the fundamental tenet of capitalism.

We all desire success, whether we achieve it or not. I am by no stretch of the imagination among the most successful of us, but I see a lot of people out there who would be substantially more successfull if they only possessed one or two skills they presently don't.

If your pay were dependent on your performance, would you work harder or be more creative in finding solutions to problems you are presented with?

As a shareholder, and business owner, I am willing to pay someone more if they perform at a higher level. I think we all can agree this is reasonable.

Is this greed? Perhaps, but simple economics dictates greater productivity reaps greater rewards.

Now if you or I am the C.E.O. of a company, and we find a way to increase the profitability of the operation...thus ensuring we keep our job, secure the jobs of other employees in the company who are competitive with other labor sources, enhance the value of our company to the owners (shareholders), increase the level of taxes on earnings we pay to society, and in the process reap some personal reward for it...are we not morally obligated to do so?

The executives who have moved jobs outside the country have not hurt all of us...they have hurt those of us who have allowed our skills and abilities to become stagnant as we enjoyed "La Vida Loca".

If the blame can be squarely placed 100% on the shoulders of business leaders, it requires complete abdication of our individual responsibility to increase our value and productivity, day after day.

Some of this is the classic "chicken and egg" arguement. "Company A" notices consumers will buy "Company B"'s products if these products are priced a nickle cheaper. Turns out "Company A" is paying more for labor than "Company B", so "A" lays people off, or outsources jobs. Now there are even more consumers out there looking for the cheapest price because they have less to spend.

Which came first...consumers demanding everything for nothing, or companies demanding everything for nothing?

It's an interesting philosophical question. Regardless, as individuals, we have little to no control over what the masses do. We do, however, still have some control over how we position ourselves in response, and better yet anticipation, of how the masses actions will impact us individually.

Quote:

Bogus starts running around screaming socialism

Were already there. Socialist Housing didn't work huh?

Thank you Barney Frank D-MA

r8

Lighten up a little, I was kidding....

 

[runeight]

Lighten up a little, I was kidding....

Good point though huh?

:handshake:

r8

 

[Mr Bogus]

Execs often earn what we consider outrageous pay scales.. unless you have been around many of these people you would not know the obsessive compulsive requirements to run a large company and the stresses, hours and hardships it puts on family.. Money will not buy happiness.. Most have at best tumultuous family lives with little down time..

you also must contend with the 20/80 rule... 20% of the people do 80% of the work.. if you can change this number, you are way ahead..

 

[Mr Bogus]

I don't necessarly think we have forced companies to find cheaper labor. It is all about greed. If executive pay increased at the same rate as the average worker and this were occuring I would agree but it is not. Company executives moved out of the country to exploit poor workers in order to make more money for themselves and now it is hurting all of us.

consumers forced this move...

 

[Scar]

We've moved our manufacturing and shipping to a 4-day work week. They're all hourly employees and those of us who are salary are helping to pick up the slack.

Tough times, to be sure!

 

[Dino]

Execs often earn what we consider outrageous pay scales.. unless you have been around many of these people you would not know the obsessive compulsive requirements to run a large company and the stresses, hours and hardships it puts on family.. Money will not buy happiness.. Most have at best tumultuous family lives with little down time..

you also must contend with the 20/80 rule... 20% of the people do 80% of the work.. if you can change this number, you are way ahead..

Agreed but does that justify the increase in the disparity in pay over the last 20-30 years?

In 1965, U.S. CEOs in major companies earned 24 times more than an average worker; this ratio grew to 35 in 1978 and to 71 in 1989. The ratio surged in the 1990s and hit 300 at the end of the recovery in 2000. The fall in the stock market reduced CEO stock-related pay (e.g., options) causing CEO pay to moderate to 143 times that of an average worker in 2002. Since then, however, CEO pay has exploded and by 2005 the average CEO was paid $10,982,000 a year, or 262 times that of an average worker ($41,861).

 

[Dino]

Good point though huh?

:handshake:

r8

Honestly, I am not sure of your reference.

 

[Mr Bogus]

Agreed but does that justify the increase in the disparity in pay over the last 20-30 years?

In 1965, U.S. CEOs in major companies earned 24 times more than an average worker; this ratio grew to 35 in 1978 and to 71 in 1989. The ratio surged in the 1990s and hit 300 at the end of the recovery in 2000. The fall in the stock market reduced CEO stock-related pay (e.g., options) causing CEO pay to moderate to 143 times that of an average worker in 2002. Since then, however, CEO pay has exploded and by 2005 the average CEO was paid $10,982,000 a year, or 262 times that of an average worker ($41,861).

boy this is going to draw some fire but here is what I see every day..

Worker will walk down a hallway, step over a piece of paper and leave it for someone else to pickup...

Many if not most of the staff I deal with on a daily basis REFUSE to do anything outside their defined little job description citing "I am not paid to pick up trash", or "I am not paid to {insert duty here}"

I work exactly opposite of that, I find things that need done.. I grew up in a family that was self employed (my parents never had jobs they went to, they had business's that they worked).. A CEO MUST find value and keep a company moving forward or the company will die..

The worker mentality is one of "how easy can I get it", not "what can I do to make this better" sad part is most will blame this attitude on "pay scale" not even taking into consideration that they might just in fact command more money by being a "pro active" person..

I like being self employed, I also do not mind working for someone that knows my value as a staff member.. doing both? I love it.. but I despise having to employ others as most are just about lazy..

IMHO, the free rides are FINALLY over for many that sat behind desks or other havens where they just got away with doing squat for profit.. The sad part is many took GOOD employed people with them..

 

[skydivr]

I already did, and more than our employees. Responsible business owners may make more in good times, but they ususally suffer worse in the bad times. We have also had, for the first time in 20 years, to make some layoffs to save the jobs of the ones we kept (and in fact, gave all the hourly employees remaining a small raise while the salaried employees took a hit). There probably won't be much of a bonus this year, either, but having a job is about to be alot better than not having one at all.

 

[runeight]

Quote:

IMHO, the free rides are FINALLY over for many that sat behind desks or other havens where they just got away with doing squat for profit.. The sad part is many took GOOD employed people with them..

Unless you are the UAW demanding voter paybacks.

r8

 

[djsin]

come live where Im highest unemployment rate in the nation
Elkhart-Goshen area registers biggest jobless rate increase in nation
moved higher in the vast majority of the nation's 369 metropolitan areas, with Indiana's Elkhart-Goshen and Dalton, Ga., registering the biggest annual increases.
Im giving plasma to pay for the bike

 

[WWJD]

when everyone is jobless and hungry except the stuffed CEOs, who's houses with be stripped and burned first? Then the rebalance will begin. People with REAL leadership ability will surface and make things happen. The CEOs will be slaves

 

[Lycan]

You ALL have some good points here and economically and morally there are alot of culprits that have contributed to this seemingly never ending spiral we currently find ourselves in.

My theory is this, I blame it all on Miami Vice...yup DAMN you Don Johnson with your swaggerish walk, and your moussed up (Sambusa wishes he had) hair, driving around in frickin Ferrari's acting like you're the coolest person on the planet...

All this gave rise to the ME ME ME generation, and folks we havent recovered from this selfish endless spiral-type degradation of the human fiber since then....

Damn you Crocket and Tubbs...damn you straight to hell...???

Carry On...

 

[TruWrecks]

I took a near $25,000 a year pay cut 8 years ago. That was more than 30% of my pay at that time. The jobs in my field at the time were very hard to find. Management told us "take it or go find another job". They knew it was a bad time to find other work. I have progresses since them because I'm willing to do what needs to be done for my team and company. This year they changed the health care plan so that the employees are required to pay all of the annual deductible before insurance pays a dime. That is effectively another $1500/year pay cut. On top of that the performance (shared company based on performance) has been completely eliminated, effectively cutting compensation another $1200 this year. My 2008 annual bonus has also been reduce, in the name of helping the stock holders and CEO. I guess that means I have received a pay cut this year. I am very grateful I have a good job, but times are definitely changing.

 

[Mr Bogus]

Excellent points.

The only comment I have pertains to:

"It is expected that performance should be rewarded in our society. That's the fundamental tenet of capitalism."

I agree with this, the problem starts when the reward is not equally distributed. Now before Bogus starts running around screaming socialism let me explain. If a company, through hard work by it's employees makes a 20% profit shouldn't everyone involved benefit? Instead what we have seen is the executive management reap the benefits through astronomical pay increases while only giving minimal pay increases to the average worker. To further add to that, companies move to poor countries so they can pay workers even less while still making a profit and lining the pockets of the executive management.

As for adding to an individuals skill base, I absolutely agree. Everyone needs to continue learning their entire lives.

absolutely not... I as a business owner take all the risks.. you the employee is guaranteed a set wage for set hours.. I am promised nothing but an endless line of other costs associated with having employees.. When I am done paying the other half of your costs (every dollar I give you costs me at least 1 more dollar in taxes, insurance and benefits and in some case even more)

I now have to make sure my vendors are paid
Delivery services are paid
and a ton of other nickle and dime expenses that just never end..

At the end, I either take the loss or take the gain... If I am loosing, you want to contribute back in? I think not.. But if I continue to loose, we are both out of our jobs.. By the same token, if I make a profit one year you think is too much, you want a piece of it? what about the years I went without a new car, lived in a cheap apartment and drove a 20 year old car? I did not get any instant gratification and elected to gamble my net worth on a good year...

So NO you are not entitled to my banner profits on this one year..(or any other year for that matter..) You want a financial gain with zero risk? You got what you invested in... Income redistribution or something more easily swallowed? Socialism or worse communism starts with this type of "1 man, 1 pay check no mater what he does, they all make the same money"