If geeks love it, we’re on it
You found the friendliest gaming & tech geeks around. Say hello!
I wouldn't call that massive, in-depth, personal experience "talking points". That was a well-researched story.
Oh gad. Staying away from this thread.No matter what economic system you choose, you're going to have those that abuse it. Rather than focusing on the corporations at the top, try thinking about how the system we have benefits the many, many small to midsized businesses that account for a much, much larger part of the economy as a whole....or just stick to the talking points of the internet. That's cool too.
Even if that's the case, they know now that there are multiple news reports of these conditions. This is just like the Apple/Foxconn controversy. Amazon is hardly the only company involved, but they drive a great deal of the demand and make a great deal of money from the practices.
Small firms:• Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms.• Employ about half of all private sector employees.• Pay 43 percent of total U.S. private payroll.• Have generated 65 percent of net new jobs over the past 17 years.• Create more than half of the nonfarm private GDP.• Hire 43 percent of high tech workers (scientists, engineers, computer programmers, and others).• Are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises.• Made up 97.5 percent of all identified exporters and produced 31 percent of export value in FY 2008.• Produce 16.5 times more
Does it, though? You can make the argument that your pickers are worth more than your manager to your success, and that they do a harder job. You can certainly still pay the manager a bit more, but that gap can be lowered to appreciate and provide for your hardest physical workers.
So the standard two options in a situation like this is A) hire more pickers/workers/wage slaves, or B) pay the existing ones more. Would any wage justify the same "work impossibly hard until you're done" mentality? Would everybody be equally all right with paying an extra 60 people the standard crap wage if it made everybody's jobs just a tiny bit easier? Say you're the business owner: which way would you go?
^ This is what I was getting at.The stock market itself has corrupted things in a lot of ways. A single business owner with no shareholders gets to do things as his morality dictates, and can probably realize that his quality of life is not significantly impacted by putting 100k of his $1 million salary back into the company to improve wages and benefits. A CEO reporting to thousands of shareholders has to keep them all happy and increasing the company's value, personal values be damned.Seems like it's that way most of the time, anyway. There are exceptions, of course, but being beholden to shareholder returns is one of the great drivers of the "nothing but the bottom line matters" mentality.
And I did say you should still pay the manager more. Outside of the context of this article, yes, they can have skills that are reflected differently than the grunts/pickers that justify a higher salary. I'm just saying the gap could be closer.
And nobody's advocating operating at a loss. The examples we're all thinking about, however, are the multi-billion giants that fire ten thousand people because profits declined from 541 billion to 530 billion.
Again, nobody's saying their business should fail. I'm merely advocating that a higher portion of the profit margin can safely be put into the people below rather than being aggregated at the top or spread out over investors. It's the bum rush and mad fluctuations of the stock market that prevent people from taking measured steps - eating a chunk of profit this year to improve employee healthcare, keeping people on through a temporary recession while you still have cash reserves to do so, etc.
Correct, but there's someone controlling that computer. The line/floor manager, who is the one doing the yelling in your example, does not.
Or... these companies could take a slight hit on their profit, pay people more and not raise prices. The market wouldn't like that though. Profits must always go up, every quarter, all the time.
Seriously though, it's possible to be a successful company while not treating your employees like shit.
I was too good to be thereI deserve more
I hear you, but consider this: I run a business you own. I'm expected to make $100. I make $50. It was a good year, despite not hitting target. However, I was expected to do better, and the market was set up to allow me to make $100, but I didn't. You'll be unhappy with me, because while I still had a great year, I could have (and likely should have) had better. Twice as good, in fact.
Icrontic — Home of the Big Beef Burrito since 8-8-2000, fool.
A Short-Media community © 2003–2013.
Powered with <3 from Vanilla & WordPress.