From that Commie Liberal mag known as the Business Insider...

GameboyRMH wrote: Why should the CEOs gain from someone else's improvements? Why should the gain from the improvements be restricted to any one group?

The CEO didn't lose his job when he installed self check out lines at the Walmart. The CEO didn't lose his job when all the assembly line workers were replaced by robots. The CEO didn't lose his job when everyone switched to email instead of snail mail.

Once someone invents robotic CEOs, by all means give them the boot! Think how much that would save a company.

Personally, I hate self check out lines and avoid them at all costs.

Datsun1500 wrote:

GameboyRMH wrote:

Enyar wrote: If you mean things like automation, computers, software, robots...why should the workers gain from someone else's improvements?

Why should the CEOs gain from someone else's improvements? Why should the gain from the improvements be restricted to any one group?

Because the company invested in the improvement, and the CEO is the head of the company.

This suggests that all of the value of the improvement was in the decision to invest in it. What about the people who implemented it or the people who make use of it (often involving some kind of training) to save the company money, they don't deserve any of the gains?

GameboyRMH wrote:

Enyar wrote: If you mean things like automation, computers, software, robots...why should the workers gain from someone else's improvements?

Why should the CEOs gain from someone else's improvements? Why should the gain from the improvements be restricted to any one group?

we all benefit from improvements in efficiency. Good are cheaper when it costs less to make/transport/show and sell them.

Enyar wrote: Could you further explain "the improvements that have come to be during the last 40 years"? If you mean things like automation, computers, software, robots...why should the workers gain from someone else's improvements?

The improvements in productivity. A worker today produces more in 40 hours of work than they did 40 years ago. Regardless of improvements due to the new tools that are now available, doesn't that increased output have a value to the company? I would argue that it does and the worker should be rewarded for increasing his contribution to the company. However, his increased contribution is not being rewarded. Unless you consider "You having a job is reward enough" as an acceptable reward.

Everyone should desire a "Honest day's pay for an honest day's work." Statistically, assuming you believe that the improvements in productivity have let us produce 5 days worth of work in 3 days, workers are now giving an honest day and 2/3rds work for the same days pay, assuming you believe that the improvements have let us produce 5 days worth of work in 3 days. And add into that calculation that this is happening with a smaller number of personnel creating this output.

The creator of the improved tools should see a benefit from the sale of his tools, because it has an intrinsic value. The worker's productive ability has an intrinsic value too. When you put the two pieces together, you get a increased value that is probably greater than the sum of the parts. Yes, I think the worker should see some of the increased value as the tool is worthless without the worker to operate it. Do you think that the creator of the tool is entitled to the benefits created by the application of his new tool? All he did was put the tool out into the market and was compensated for the value of his tool.

None of this is in a vacuum. It is not a black and white issue that we are going to solve here. I just wanted to raise the point that through all of the increases in productivity, the workers are not seeing the increase generated by their improved output. It is being diverted at a higher level and I think it is not fair. I'm not trying to say all of the increase should go to the workers. But they should have seen something.

MrJoshua wrote: we all benefit from improvements in efficiency. Good are cheaper when it costs less to make/transport/show and sell them.

Except the people who's job is lost/ decreased hours/less valuable then previously.

GameboyRMH wrote: This suggests that all of the value of the improvement was in the decision to invest in it. What about the people who implemented it or the people who make use of it (often involving some kind of training) to save the company money, they don't deserve any of the gains?

The people who implemented it were valuable when it was implemented and should have been rewarded at that time either by a bonus/raise. Once it's implemented and they serve no purpose or a lessor purpose...why should they continue to benefit?

Wxdude10 wrote: The improvements in productivity. A worker today produces more in 40 hours of work than they did 40 years ago. Regardless of improvements due to the new tools that are now available, doesn't that increased output have a value to the company? I would argue that it does and the worker should be rewarded for increasing his contribution to the company. However, his increased contribution is not being rewarded. Unless you consider "You having a job is reward enough" as an acceptable reward. Everyone should desire a "Honest day's pay for an honest day's work." Statistically, assuming you believe that the improvements in productivity have let us produce 5 days worth of work in 3 days, workers are now giving an honest day and 2/3rds work for the same days pay, assuming you believe that the improvements have let us produce 5 days worth of work in 3 days. And add into that calculation that this is happening with a smaller number of personnel creating this output. The creator of the improved tools should see a benefit from the sale of his tools, because it has an intrinsic value. The worker's productive ability has an intrinsic value too. When you put the two pieces together, you get a increased value that is probably greater than the sum of the parts. Yes, I think the worker should see some of the increased value as the tool is worthless without the worker to operate it. Do you think that the creator of the tool is entitled to the benefits created by the application of his new tool? All he did was put the tool out into the market and was compensated for the value of his tool. None of this is in a vacuum. It is not a black and white issue that we are going to solve here. I just wanted to raise the point that through all of the increases in productivity, the workers are not seeing the increase generated by their improved output. It is being diverted at a higher level and I think it is not fair. I'm not trying to say all of the increase should go to the workers. But they should have seen something.

I don't think increases in productivity necessarily means they are working harder or more. Who worked more, the guy (A) who spent 10 hours and made 10 widgets or the guy (B) who spent 10 hours making 30 widgets?

If 30 widget per hour man thinks he should be getting paid 20% more than his counterpart....he is probably right. But what if guy (C) is willing to work for 20% less and he too can pump out 30 widgets. Do you pay B a hire salary or say eff him and hire C?

bastomatic wrote: In reply to novaderrik: I really think you are just proving the other side's point here. You are able to live a decent life by living in a rural area where cost of living is inexpensive, and by being as thrifty as possible. I get that, heck I live that way too, as I'm sure many here do. But if you make 40 to 50k a year, you should realize that you're making more than 50% of the households in this country. Heck, 25% of all households make less than $30k. I think that's the argument here. the income gap between the middle class and upper has grown, and the wages of the middle class have decreased even without adjusting for inflation. Meanwhile, economic mobility, the ability to better your own situation, has fallen dramatically. When the numbers are as skewed as these, you're looking at powerful market forces that are depressing average incoms, not just simple individual laziness.

This.

Datsun1500 wrote: They did get a gain, it made their job easier. They have an easier job without a reduction in pay. It's like getting a raise

Did it? Usually these improvements reduce the difficulty of the work but increase the volume expected to be done in the same time. That's how you get productivity gains vs. just making the job easier.

GameboyRMH wrote:

Datsun1500 wrote: They did get a gain, it made their job easier. They have an easier job without a reduction in pay. It's like getting a raise

Did it? Usually these improvements reduce the difficulty of the work but increase the volume expected to be done in the same time. That's how you get productivity gains vs. just making the job easier.

So are they working more or the same? I would argue the same, they are just being more productive.

Enyar wrote: So are they working more or the same? I would argue the same, they are just being more productive.

A fair assessment. So we agree that the worker has been made more productive. But because the CEO made the decision that enabled this, he gets all the gains?

MrJoshua wrote:

GameboyRMH wrote:

Enyar wrote: If you mean things like automation, computers, software, robots...why should the workers gain from someone else's improvements?

Why should the CEOs gain from someone else's improvements? Why should the gain from the improvements be restricted to any one group?

we all benefit from improvements in efficiency. Good are cheaper when it costs less to make/transport/show and sell them.

This came up in the "six figures" thread and I'll say the same thing here: If that's true, why the disparity in pay between big cities and rural areas? Employers know the cost of living and adjust pay to suit, so cheaper goods don't "lift the tide."

GameboyRMH wrote:

Enyar wrote: So are they working more or the same? I would argue the same, they are just being more productive.

A fair assessment. So we agree that the worker has been made more productive. But because the CEO made the decision that enabled this, he gets all the gains?

Oh I totally agree we are much more productive. The CEO doesn't get all the gains though. Pretty much everyone gains except the one that lost his job/decreased pay/less stability/other duties.

The shareholders gain because their investment can pay a higher dividend now

The consumer gains because he just bought that widget for $2.99 instead of $3.99

The E-Z Widget machine fabricator gains because he's collecting royalties or sales on his invention

E-Z Machine Implementers Inc. gains because they are going to every widget company and installing the E-Z Widget machine.

My objective is to now be that guy who isn't valuable or easily replaceable (see entry level and non-skilled workers).

The issue for the US is with this global economy is the supply of workers is like 1241x larger (not fact checked). So the people that got "in" and made some cash before this are sitting pretty because they have the experience they need to be valuable. The recent grads like more or the ones behind me are the ones that are having to get creative to get the same decent jobs that were easier to come by back in the day.

As an example. Every spring I work for a client on an engagement that makes my company ~$900,000. I work crazy hours (9am-3am isn't the exception) and do a ton of work. In the past couple years however the work has become less and less (the people before me used to sleep at the client they would work so much). Not only that, but starting around 9pm, I transition some of my work over to a group in Bangalore which does the same thing I do (probably better!) until 9 am when he transitions the work back to me. Essentially working around the clock, but you better believe they pay that group much much less. It's only a matter of time until it's 100% transferred over to that group and my company is cut out completely. Next step, it wouldn't be tough to make a computer do what I do and then neither my group or the group in Bangalore have work. As much as I would love to collect the $900k by sitting on my butt while reading GRM (shhhhh don't tell anyone), it's not gonna happen!

For the record, I'm not trying to force my beliefs on anyone and have no political agenda or anything. This is just what I think and I think discussion is great because everyone can learn something new (myself included).

Datsun1500 wrote: Yes. He gets the gains because he is the head of the company. The worker was hired to do a job at an agreed upon rate.

It's not that simple, or a replacement for that worker should be paid more since he's not on the same contract.

Datsun1500 wrote: In another thread, you had something you could build for $12 and sell for $20, correct? $8 profit to you. Assume you got a buddy that could build 2 in an hour and you agreed to pay him $20 an hour to build them. After selling 50 of them you buy him a faster tool, now he can build 2.5 an hour. Do you raise his hourly rate or just have more to sell?

I'd say a bit of both, but I'm weird that way. EDIT: Although I wouldn't have hired him at that rate in the first place because he's making me $16 for $20 of labor, before I even pay him. I lose $20+4 every hour he works.

Enyar wrote: The shareholders gain because their investment can pay a higher dividend now The consumer gains because he just bought that widget for $2.99 instead of $3.99 The E-Z Widget machine fabricator gains because he's collecting royalties or sales on his invention E-Z Machine Implementers Inc. gains because they are going to every widget company and installing the E-Z Widget machine. My objective is to [not] be that guy who isn't valuable or easily replaceable (see entry level and non-skilled workers).

So where did the employee gain again? As a consumer through cheaper goods? He may get a temporary boost, until employers adjust to the lower living expenses as I pointed out a few posts up. I did see him get a harder time keeping his job, that doesn't sound like a gain.

GameboyRMH wrote:

MrJoshua wrote:

GameboyRMH wrote:

Enyar wrote: If you mean things like automation, computers, software, robots...why should the workers gain from someone else's improvements?

Why should the CEOs gain from someone else's improvements? Why should the gain from the improvements be restricted to any one group?

we all benefit from improvements in efficiency. Good are cheaper when it costs less to make/transport/show and sell them.

This came up in the "six figures" thread and I'll say the same thing here: If that's true, why the disparity in pay between big cities and rural areas? Employers know the cost of living and adjust pay to suit, so cheaper goods don't "lift the tide."

Supply and demand. Skilled workers don't want to live in Arkansas so places like CA and NYC get all the high paying jobs. Those cities have the infrastructure or resources or whatever they need to produce their product/service.

GameboyRMH wrote: So where did the employee gain again? As a consumer through cheaper goods? He may get a temporary boost, until employers adjust to the lower living expenses as I pointed out a few posts up. I did see him get a harder time keeping his job, that doesn't sound like a gain.

He didn't, hes the guy that lost his job because his job was shipped off to China or replaced by the software. 3rd sentence of my post.

ronholm wrote: how come it seems the people who are the first to complain about the "status quo" seem to want more of it... Obviously letting the people think a basic "good" living is their birthright isn't working out for us.. This is NOT what "Life LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of happiness means!!!!!! For Gods Sakes... When doing the math for "the average guy"..... Someone figured in nearly a new car payment as a necessity... And implies somehow it is something owed to each 'Murican by society... Come on people... That type of thinking IS the status quo... and IS the problem!!!!!

Goes to show you didn't read my entire post.

I said that end, for my generation, change the car payment for student loan debt.

Enyar wrote: He didn't, hes the guy that lost his job because his job was shipped off to China or replaced by the software. 3rd sentence of my post.

Oh I see...so how did the remaining employees gain? Just through keeping their jobs and the temporary boost from a lower cost of living?

GameboyRMH wrote:

Datsun1500 wrote: In another thread, you had something you could build for $12 and sell for $20, correct? $8 profit to you. Assume you got a buddy that could build 2 in an hour and you agreed to pay him $20 an hour to build them. After selling 50 of them you buy him a faster tool, now he can build 2.5 an hour. Do you raise his hourly rate or just have more to sell?

I'd say a bit of both, but I'm weird that way. EDIT: Although I wouldn't have hired him at that rate in the first place because he's making me $16 for $20 of labor, before I even pay him. I lose $20+4 every hour he works.

He's making you $20 an hour and you get to sit on your bum is how I interpreted it.

You working = $12 cost, $20 sales price=$8 profit Him working = $10 per widget ($20 an hour, 2 thingums an hour), $20 sales price = $10 profit and you sit on your ass

You would raise his hourly rate if he was a cool guy, worked hard and if he left you would have to get off your ass and work again.

What if he's still a cool guy, works hard,etc but now James May comes along and has a killer resume of build thingamabobbers. He wants to work for $15 an hour and he too can make 2 thingamabobbers AND he brushes his teeth in the morning. Do you hire James or give the other guy a raise?

GameboyRMH wrote:

Enyar wrote: He didn't, hes the guy that lost his job because his job was shipped off to China or replaced by the software. 3rd sentence of my post.

Oh I see...so how did the remaining employees gain? Just through keeping their jobs and the temporary boost from a lower cost of living?

Do they do the same thing that the guy that lost his job does? Or do they do something else that hasn't had the change of technology/productivity/etc?

If so, ship their jobs to china. If they don't make widgets for a living and they do something completely different, say, clean the toilets...no change.

You're making me sound like Mitt Romney! (EDIT: Joke)

Enyar wrote: Do they do the same thing that the guy that lost his job does? Or do they do something else that hasn't had the change of technology/productivity/etc?

Let's say the remaining employees' productivity has gone up, which allowed for that guy to be laid off.

My thoughts: how the hell much money does a person really need? Take the Waltons, for instance: a combined net worth of $115.7 billion. That's $115,700,000,000.00. The average Wal Mart associate makes around $19,000.00 a year. The CEO's bonus last year was $20,000,000.00. http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2013/06/13/as-walton-family-solidifies-majority-wal-mart-workers-promise-dissent-for-fair-pay/

Wal Mart has 2.1 million employees worldwide. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2011/performers/companies/biggest/employees.html

Split that $115,700,000,000.00 in half, this leaves the Waltons with $57,850,000,000.00. Split the other half between the 2.1 million employees who made that huge number possible, each would receive approximately $27,547.00. And still leave the family WAY more than they could spend quickly. This number doesn't even touch the non-family compensation.

Way lopsided numbers like these are why there is a growing clamor to put some kind of brakes on this. I'm not saying all companies are like the Wal Mart example; for instance the boss here owns 4 dealerships in town, pays his employees well (better than the local average), there's not a revolving door, we get a great bennies package, a good match for 401 and Chistmas Club etc and he still has a wad of $ left for himself. That's the way a company should be run.

GameboyRMH wrote:

Enyar wrote: Do they do the same thing that the guy that lost his job does? Or do they do something else that hasn't had the change of technology/productivity/etc?

Let's say the remaining employees' productivity has gone up, which allowed for that guy to be laid off.

How did they become more productive? They were sand bagging before and all of a sudden, in fear of losing their job they decide to pump out more work?

If they can be replaced by someone with the same productivity/smells the same/ doesn't hit on the interns then they better be glad they were there first and got the job before the next guy. If they are in fact more productive than the next guy, I would hope management recognizes this and either bumps their pay or gives them a bonus. Otherwise, those workers my not feel appreciated enough and jump ship to start their own firm.

Curmudgeon wrote: My thoughts: how the hell much money does a person really need? Take the Waltons, for instance: a combined net worth of $115.7 billion. That's $115,700,000,000.00. The average Wal Mart associate makes around $19,000.00 a year. The CEO's bonus last year was $20,000,000.00. http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2013/06/13/as-walton-family-solidifies-majority-wal-mart-workers-promise-dissent-for-fair-pay/ Wal Mart has 2.1 million employees worldwide. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2011/performers/companies/biggest/employees.html Split that $115,700,000,000.00 in half, this leaves the Waltons with $57,850,000,000.00. Split the other half between the 2.1 million employees who made that huge number possible, each would receive approximately $27,547.00. And still leave the family WAY more than they could spend quickly. This number doesn't even touch the non-family compensation. Way lopsided numbers like these are why there is a growing clamor to put some kind of brakes on this. I'm not saying all companies are like the Wal Mart example; for instance the boss here owns 4 dealerships in town, pays his employees well (better than the local average), there's not a revolving door, we get a great bennies package, a good match for 401 and Chistmas Club etc and he still has a wad of $ left for himself. That's the way a company should be run.

I'm with you on that my friend. That's why my plan is to get in the race, make enough money to get my 56' Rybovich and support my chosen lifestyle/ family and then GTFO and enjoy myself on some island in the Caribbean. Give back to the community here and there and help those less fortunate.

That being said, who am I to say it needs to be taken from the Waltons? They are free to do whatever they want with that money. If they wanted to use it for toilet paper that's up to them.Why should the employees get an extra $8,000 to blow on who knows what and the Waltons lose 50% of their worth?

Does the boss you speak of run a dealership where service and quality is key? Or is he more of a give the customer the run around, sell shady cars, waste peoples time but at a good price.