Would You Take a Pay Cut to Save Jobs?

[Dino]

This is where you fall out of the economic theory sir...

Free enterprise allows anyone to provide services for anyone else.. IF I am making such insane money, you can go open a competing business, charge FAR FAR less and make your millions... Fact is that is NOT how it works.. profit margins are in the single digits for all but the best run companies..

you need some economics reality here.. If you can save 10% on production, you slash like amounts off the sale of said services or products to cut under the competition....

You act like employers are running work camps and this is not the case... they are trying to provide services and products at competitive prices.. when you fail to do so, you go the way of the Big 3.... stop and think about his a bit and I am sure someone can suggest some good books on economics for you to read..

Sure. Better some income than no income. But I do agree that it is disgraceful that the everyday person has to take cuts and risk losing their job because of the out and out greed we have seen from the corporate world.

In 2005, the average CEO in the United States earned 262 times the pay of the average worker, the second-highest level of this ratio in the 40 years for which there are data. In 2005, a CEO earned more in one workday (there are 260 in a year) than an average worker earned in 52 weeks.

CEO-to-worker pay imbalance grows

If what you were saying was true then the above article would not have been written. It seems the average CEO is doing much more than simply trying to provide competitive products and competitive prices.

I don't think you are completely wrong, you are just looking at it through to narrow a lens, you need to look at the forrest not just a couple trees.

 

[BenWoj42]

Pay cuts? We dont get pay cuts here. What they do is fire everyone, then hire them back at a fraction of a cost. Always makes you feel good that they can treat people like property.

Yeah yeah, UAW is so bad . I've heard enough of that spewed from the REP. that last few years. Can't wait to see what this place will look like once they start working on the employee free choice act.

 

[Mr Bogus]

no this is where our basic thought process is far different.. you look at this as oppression and some kind of tyrant leading a pack of starving slaves to slaughter...

I see it as an opportunity to enter a market with a competitive product by undercutting some guys zillion dollar wage package... this could be why I am a self employed contract worker and an employee... I can work both sides of the issue to my own advantage... I am not blinded by some sense of gross injustice...

 

[Dino]

no this is where our basic thought process is far different.. you look at this as oppression and some kind of tyrant leading a pack of starving slaves to slaughter...

I see it as an opportunity to enter a market with a competitive product by undercutting some guys zillion dollar wage package... this could be why I am a self employed contract worker and an employee... I can work both sides of the issue to my own advantage... I am not blinded by some sense of gross injustice...

No I see it as greed at the top that leads to the average worker having to take cuts to help other average worker keep their job.

 

[99'busa]

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.

Heck NO!! If the company takes a 20% loss due to laziness or stupidity should we TAKE 20% from their pay?

 

[Dino]

Heck NO!! If the company takes a 20% loss due to laziness or stupidity should we TAKE 20% from their pay?

Maybe, or maybe a reduction in the workforce. Isn't that what this thread is about?

 

[99'busa]

then hire on under a contingency... I make money, you make money... your idea of profit without risk is really pie in the sky.... You contention here is absurd...

Good employee gets to work another day... Great employee gets raises, other job offers and more money.. so do not even pretend that if you do a great job you do not get compensated.. I have gone well out of my way for "Great" staff members.. (as has most any good manager, great employees are a asset to be treated as such.. if you are unaware of this treatment, well look inward, not outward)

well said

 

[Mr Bogus]

No I see it as greed at the top that leads to the average worker having to take cuts to help other average worker keep their job.

well if the pay for doing Job "A" is so bad, go to company "B" or are all the companies in bed with each other to keep the common worker (used to just be minority workers right?) down?

Our complaint about being held down by the man is the same, only the target audience has changed I suppose.. instead of just women or blacks, now it is EVERYONE!! OMG!!~

 

[Dino]

Heck NO!! If the company takes a 20% loss due to laziness or stupidity should we TAKE 20% from their pay?

well if the pay for doing Job "A" is so bad, go to company "B" or are all the companies in bed with each other to keep the common worker (used to just be minority workers right?) down?

Our complaint about being held down by the man is the same, only the target audience has changed I suppose.. instead of just women or blacks, now it is EVERYONE!! OMG!!~

In 2005, the average CEO in the United States earned 262 times the pay of the average worker, the second-highest level of this ratio in the 40 years for which there are data. In 2005, a CEO earned more in one workday (there are 260 in a year) than an average worker earned in 52 weeks.

 

[99'busa]

In 2005, the average CEO in the United States earned 262 times the pay of the average worker, the second-highest level of this ratio in the 40 years for which there are data. In 2005, a CEO earned more in one workday (there are 260 in a year) than an average worker earned in 52 weeks.

In many of those cases I'm willing to bet the CEO's are drowning the co. If the co. is flourishing and debt free than great for them. I'm not going to hate my boss because he makes a whole lot more than me. I took job A agreeing to the said $ amount.

 

[Mr Bogus]

In 2005, the average CEO in the United States earned 262 times the pay of the average worker, the second-highest level of this ratio in the 40 years for which there are data. In 2005, a CEO earned more in one workday (there are 260 in a year) than an average worker earned in 52 weeks.

you are still in la la land... how many CEO's are there in a company? how many workers?

In the auto industry, blacks have a higher than average income $18 before benefits and there are currently around 120,000 black workers.. or roughly 14% of the work force in the car manufacturing between the 3 auto makers.. so lets just say 1.2M workers divided among 3 CEO's..

18*262= 4716 per hour.. I now spread that roughly $4700 per hour out over 400,000 workers (you are still with me right?) do the math... it is about $.02 per worker per hour... sure the guy makes great money, but it is NOTHING compared to wages of the working stiff... was thinking you understood more of this than you do... my bad...

CEO works for free and every one can get a 2 penny raise...

 

[Dino]

you are still in la la land... how many CEO's are there in a company? how many workers?

In the auto industry, blacks have a higher than average income $18 before benefits and there are currently around 120,000 black workers.. or roughly 14% of the work force in the car manufacturing between the 3 auto makers.. so lets just say 1.2M workers divided among 3 CEO's..

18*262= 4716 per hour.. I now spread that roughly $4700 per hour out over 400,000 workers (you are still with me right?) do the math... it is about $.02 per worker per hour... sure the guy makes great money, but it is NOTHING compared to wages of the working stiff... was thinking you understood more of this than you do... my bad...

CEO works for free and every one can get a 2 penny raise...

I am not sure what your discussion of black auto workers has to do with anything. You should read the entire article because it shows an increasing disparity between ceo pay and worker pay since 1965 when the top earned a mere 24 times the bottom this has grown to the top earning 300 times more than the bottom in 2000 and as of 05 is at 262 times. This is an example of greed out of control.

 

[Mr Bogus]

I was using blacks because they have a higher per hour wage than the other workers.. point is if the CEO for any of the big 3 works for free. IT will NOT have any affect on the common wage earner.. You are using what I find to be the "oppression argument" that blacks have used for decades (and women as well).. Even if we just spread the extra money to the blacks it comes out to be under a 14 cent pay raise.. and your greedy CEO is working for free...

 

[Mellow77]

I have not had a cost of living in my pay for 5 years.. In my line of work its against the law to go on strike. The City Manager said that if we get a raise in pay he will lay off the amount of men that equal the pay raise. Sorry I will not take a pay cut Im living five years in the past for pay as it is now.

This brings up a good point the article ignores. I'm in a similar situation and feel fortunate to have a job. That said, I've been told repeatedly (at every review in the last few years) that I'm a top performer. My reward has consistently been more work and responsibility with no other motivation to accompany it due to "company cut-backs". So at this point no I'm not willing to take a cut. If the cuts are handed out I want them to start at the top with the fat'n happy's and then wittle their way through the performance levels. If I'm not worth what I'm being paid then I won't fault the company for letting me go. I'll simply wish them good luck in paying someone else the training required for them to do my job for me.

 

[Mellow77]

F+MA - I couldn't agree more...but what nobody can seem to agree on is how to fix it. I think we as consumers should own up to a bulk of the problem. We want everything at it's highest quality and lower price. Do to our previous behavior, our current state is dictating we must search out the cheaper prices to maintain our quality of living. It's a spiraling effect we are stuck in.
A possible fix would be to adjust our standard of living (which includes how we perceive our own skillsets). Anyone care to guess at the likelihood of that happening would be?

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.

 

[BusaWizard]

You'll be surprised what you'll do, some money is better than no money.

 

[Mellow77]

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"

I can certainly understand your perspective to a point, especially when it comes to small business. On a bigger scale, what do you say to those loyal employees that redistributed part of their income back into your company and now owns shares of it that are worth a fraction of what they bought in at? Last time I checked that's a pretty true sense of what a real entrepreneur was. Problem is, the giving back, pay cuts and reduced benefits are forced rather than voluntary.

 

[F=MA]

F+MA - I couldn't agree more...but what nobody can seem to agree on is how to fix it. I think we as consumers should own up to a bulk of the problem. We want everything at it's highest quality and lower price. Do to our previous behavior, our current state is dictating we must search out the cheaper prices to maintain our quality of living. It's a spiraling effect we are stuck in.
A possible fix would be to adjust our standard of living (which includes how we perceive our own skillsets). Anyone care to guess at the likelihood of that happening would be?

I suspect the likelihood of this happening is zero until it is forced upon us through unemployment or bankruptcy. It's just too much easier to affix blame elsewhere than to look in the mirror at the real problem.

To be completely frank, that visit to India a few years ago really opened my eyes. As a result, I've been saving, investing, and working like never before to try to get ahead of the globalization wave.

We had better hope the rest of the world still sees the U.S. as a good credit risk. If that ever changes, times will get very interesting very quickly.

I do agree that C.E.O. pay is out of line - and has increased at a ridiculous rate over the last few decades. Stress or not, no one is going to die at the end of the day if a C.E.O. makes a mistake.

 

[Dino]

I was using blacks because they have a higher per hour wage than the other workers.. point is if the CEO for any of the big 3 works for free. IT will NOT have any affect on the common wage earner.. You are using what I find to be the "oppression argument" that blacks have used for decades (and women as well).. Even if we just spread the extra money to the blacks it comes out to be under a 14 cent pay raise.. and your greedy CEO is working for free...

Just take a look at the article. No one is saying anything about oppression.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[Lycan]

Alright! That does it!

HOOKERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!