Henry Ford gave his employees an outrageous pay raise, to $5 a day. All the experts guaranteed he'd be out of business by the end of the year. They knew for certain that Henry had lost his mind. They missed it. Ford's profits went up. Sales and production went up and Ford ended up with the best, hardest working, most loyal employees in the industry and a waiting line at the employment office. Losses, shrinkage, waste and production delays all but disappeared. Quality improved. This was a marvelous experiment in manufacturing never before attempted and not to be confused with the minimum wage debate, today.
Is it just me? Corporations
- Thread starter StevieC
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
Jeepman3071,
St Louis decreased minimum wage from $10 an hour to $7.70 because business owners were complaining about how badly $10 an hour was hurting their profitability. It was either lower the minimum wage...... or we'll go out of business very soon and you'll collect ZERO taxes from us.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/08/st-louis-minimum-wage-preemption/538182/
Did you read the story? Sounds more like a political fight to me. If a company can't afford to pay workers $10 an hour, they better take a serious look at their business plan.
Jeepman3071,
St Louis decreased minimum wage from $10 an hour to $7.70 because business owners were complaining about how badly $10 an hour was hurting their profitability. It was either lower the minimum wage...... or we'll go out of business very soon and you'll collect ZERO taxes from us.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/08/st-louis-minimum-wage-preemption/538182/
Did you read the story? Sounds more like a political fight to me. If a company can't afford to pay workers $10 an hour, they better take a serious look at their business plan.
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
Jeepman3071,
St Louis decreased minimum wage from $10 an hour to $7.70 because business owners were complaining about how badly $10 an hour was hurting their profitability. It was either lower the minimum wage...... or we'll go out of business very soon and you'll collect ZERO taxes from us.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/08/st-louis-minimum-wage-preemption/538182/
Did you read the story? Sounds more like a political fight to me. If a company can't afford to pay workers $10 an hour, they better take a serious look at their business plan.
It screams political to me as well, but I could see how it would be possible, more likely for a small business.
Take the following theoretical example:
Say you have a small donut shop trying to compete with Dunkin donuts (we actually have a couple home-made ones around here). The shop employs two minimum wage workers to run the store during operating hours (we will leave out management from the equation at this point). Say they make $10/hr and at that employee cost for the company (2 workers) they are able to keep profits coming in. Well now minimum increases to $15/hr. Keeping the two employees increases their employee cost for those same profits, essentially cutting into their profits. For some big stores this isn't such a big deal, but for small businesses or poorly run establishments it will be an issue. For this small donut shop, it becomes an issue, so they cut down to one employee at $15, maybe even $16.50 an hour because of the increased responsibility for one person. That one person is less likely to be able to provide the same service, so customers are not satisfied, business suffers, and in turn profit suffers. The store really needs 2 employees, but can only afford one.
I do think it has a LOT more to do with profits to CEOs and poor business management than it does sustainability, but I do see how the argument could have some weight for a smaller business or one that is poorly run.
Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
Jeepman3071,
St Louis decreased minimum wage from $10 an hour to $7.70 because business owners were complaining about how badly $10 an hour was hurting their profitability. It was either lower the minimum wage...... or we'll go out of business very soon and you'll collect ZERO taxes from us.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/08/st-louis-minimum-wage-preemption/538182/
Did you read the story? Sounds more like a political fight to me. If a company can't afford to pay workers $10 an hour, they better take a serious look at their business plan.
It screams political to me as well, but I could see how it would be possible, more likely for a small business.
Take the following theoretical example:
Say you have a small donut shop trying to compete with Dunkin donuts (we actually have a couple home-made ones around here). The shop employs two minimum wage workers to run the store during operating hours (we will leave out management from the equation at this point). Say they make $10/hr and at that employee cost for the company (2 workers) they are able to keep profits coming in. Well now minimum increases to $15/hr. Keeping the two employees increases their employee cost for those same profits, essentially cutting into their profits. For some big stores this isn't such a big deal, but for small businesses or poorly run establishments it will be an issue. For this small donut shop, it becomes an issue, so they cut down to one employee at $15, maybe even $16.50 an hour because of the increased responsibility for one person. That one person is less likely to be able to provide the same service, so customers are not satisfied, business suffers, and in turn profit suffers. The store really needs 2 employees, but can only afford one.
I do think it has a LOT more to do with profits to CEOs and poor business management than it does sustainability, but I do see how the argument could have some weight for a smaller business or one that is poorly run.
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
People had tremendous self discipline and pride in workmanship in those days too …
Don’t think it’s the same anymore …
I started out in manufacturing in the mid 70’s … union boss got on me quick about being too productive …
Don’t think it’s the same anymore …
I started out in manufacturing in the mid 70’s … union boss got on me quick about being too productive …
Last edited:
It isn't so much you can't afford to pay a guy 10 an hour
Its the 10 and hour, plus his workmans comp, plus his SS wage - it add up fast.
There is no such thing as a 10 an hour guy if you hire him legally and follow all the rules.
I dont bend the rules - that carries to high a price if someone pursues you on it.
I simply change the deal within the rules.
I wonder How many guys here have ever actually had to sweat a payroll as an employer - Love to see a count.
What are you getting for your net to you 20 an hour when its all said and done?
Example Ive got to pay a guy what works out to be about 20 an hour to sweep the shop an hour a day 6 days a week. 50 weeks a year that 6K a year to sweep a shop.
That more than fairly compensated labor produces nothing and earns me nothing.
Used to be id hire a kid looking for some extra money and I was happy t0 pay him some bread for the job - helps him helps me - but the gov says I can't treat him any differently.
.... so heres what happens when Im, forced to pay more than makes sense.....
I bought a Makita industrial sweeper robot for 1200 bones and I hire no one for that task.
UD
Its the 10 and hour, plus his workmans comp, plus his SS wage - it add up fast.
There is no such thing as a 10 an hour guy if you hire him legally and follow all the rules.
I dont bend the rules - that carries to high a price if someone pursues you on it.
I simply change the deal within the rules.
I wonder How many guys here have ever actually had to sweat a payroll as an employer - Love to see a count.
What are you getting for your net to you 20 an hour when its all said and done?
Example Ive got to pay a guy what works out to be about 20 an hour to sweep the shop an hour a day 6 days a week. 50 weeks a year that 6K a year to sweep a shop.
That more than fairly compensated labor produces nothing and earns me nothing.
Used to be id hire a kid looking for some extra money and I was happy t0 pay him some bread for the job - helps him helps me - but the gov says I can't treat him any differently.
.... so heres what happens when Im, forced to pay more than makes sense.....
I bought a Makita industrial sweeper robot for 1200 bones and I hire no one for that task.
UD
Originally Posted By: Donald
Thus why decreasing the corp tax rate to 20% will allow companies to do more stock buy-backs and not create more jobs, help the economy. It helps the owners of the stock, the rich people and maybe 401K owners.
Don't you think having the highest corporate tax rate in the world incentivizes corporations to ship manufacturing overseas? Cut the tax rate from what it is now, to 20% with incentives to bring manufacturing back to America, will ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY create more jobs. The govt is not the answer. Remove excess regulation and lower the corporate tax rate, and corporations could afford to manufacture stateside again.
Thus why decreasing the corp tax rate to 20% will allow companies to do more stock buy-backs and not create more jobs, help the economy. It helps the owners of the stock, the rich people and maybe 401K owners.
Don't you think having the highest corporate tax rate in the world incentivizes corporations to ship manufacturing overseas? Cut the tax rate from what it is now, to 20% with incentives to bring manufacturing back to America, will ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY create more jobs. The govt is not the answer. Remove excess regulation and lower the corporate tax rate, and corporations could afford to manufacture stateside again.
The American and UK systems seem to be all about short term profits, the investors demand it. Germany and Japan appear to be much more focused on long term viability, which means investing in quality control and a properly trained and motivated workforce.
The producers of high quality products with their necessarily higher overheads are facing an onslaught of vary cheap junk, which is eroding their customer base. By and large many people don't care that they are buying junk, it's cheap junk, that's all that matters.
What's the answer?. I don't know. It's easy to see something is wrong. How to fix it is the hard bit.
Claud.
The producers of high quality products with their necessarily higher overheads are facing an onslaught of vary cheap junk, which is eroding their customer base. By and large many people don't care that they are buying junk, it's cheap junk, that's all that matters.
What's the answer?. I don't know. It's easy to see something is wrong. How to fix it is the hard bit.
Claud.
AGREE!
Originally Posted By: jeepman3071
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
Jeepman3071,
St Louis decreased minimum wage from $10 an hour to $7.70 because business owners were complaining about how badly $10 an hour was hurting their profitability. It was either lower the minimum wage...... or we'll go out of business very soon and you'll collect ZERO taxes from us.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/08/st-louis-minimum-wage-preemption/538182/
Did you read the story? Sounds more like a political fight to me. If a company can't afford to pay workers $10 an hour, they better take a serious look at their business plan.
It screams political to me as well, but I could see how it would be possible, more likely for a small business.
Take the following theoretical example:
Say you have a small donut shop trying to compete with Dunkin donuts (we actually have a couple home-made ones around here). The shop employs two minimum wage workers to run the store during operating hours (we will leave out management from the equation at this point). Say they make $10/hr and at that employee cost for the company (2 workers) they are able to keep profits coming in. Well now minimum increases to $15/hr. Keeping the two employees increases their employee cost for those same profits, essentially cutting into their profits. For some big stores this isn't such a big deal, but for small businesses or poorly run establishments it will be an issue. For this small donut shop, it becomes an issue, so they cut down to one employee at $15, maybe even $16.50 an hour because of the increased responsibility for one person. That one person is less likely to be able to provide the same service, so customers are not satisfied, business suffers, and in turn profit suffers. The store really needs 2 employees, but can only afford one.
I do think it has a LOT more to do with profits to CEOs and poor business management than it does sustainability, but I do see how the argument could have some weight for a smaller business or one that is poorly run.
That's why I'd never want to own a business. Too much stress, aggravations and worries to have a county, city, state or government telling me how to run my business and kill me. Not worth my effort when I already have 3 retirement programs at work and full benefits package.
Soda tax in Illinois fizzled out when the truth came out and it hurt businesses.
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
Jeepman3071,
St Louis decreased minimum wage from $10 an hour to $7.70 because business owners were complaining about how badly $10 an hour was hurting their profitability. It was either lower the minimum wage...... or we'll go out of business very soon and you'll collect ZERO taxes from us.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/08/st-louis-minimum-wage-preemption/538182/
Did you read the story? Sounds more like a political fight to me. If a company can't afford to pay workers $10 an hour, they better take a serious look at their business plan.
It screams political to me as well, but I could see how it would be possible, more likely for a small business.
Take the following theoretical example:
Say you have a small donut shop trying to compete with Dunkin donuts (we actually have a couple home-made ones around here). The shop employs two minimum wage workers to run the store during operating hours (we will leave out management from the equation at this point). Say they make $10/hr and at that employee cost for the company (2 workers) they are able to keep profits coming in. Well now minimum increases to $15/hr. Keeping the two employees increases their employee cost for those same profits, essentially cutting into their profits. For some big stores this isn't such a big deal, but for small businesses or poorly run establishments it will be an issue. For this small donut shop, it becomes an issue, so they cut down to one employee at $15, maybe even $16.50 an hour because of the increased responsibility for one person. That one person is less likely to be able to provide the same service, so customers are not satisfied, business suffers, and in turn profit suffers. The store really needs 2 employees, but can only afford one.
I do think it has a LOT more to do with profits to CEOs and poor business management than it does sustainability, but I do see how the argument could have some weight for a smaller business or one that is poorly run.
That's why I'd never want to own a business. Too much stress, aggravations and worries to have a county, city, state or government telling me how to run my business and kill me. Not worth my effort when I already have 3 retirement programs at work and full benefits package.
Soda tax in Illinois fizzled out when the truth came out and it hurt businesses.
Originally Posted By: StevieC
Is it just me or does it seem that corporations today fail to realize that by being stingy with wages and rolling back wages / cutting work force that they along with others are only shooting themselves in the foot over the long term because consumer spending is then cut back out of necessity.
It's like they can't see that one hand feeds the other and that if they give a little they will get a lot in return with benefit of a stable society where inflation grows and so do their profits and everyone is happy.
Seems to me the cycle is broken and they just keep breaking it further ?!?
The good news is you can start your own business, and run it as you see fit. If your ideas are viable, you should be a great success.
Is it just me or does it seem that corporations today fail to realize that by being stingy with wages and rolling back wages / cutting work force that they along with others are only shooting themselves in the foot over the long term because consumer spending is then cut back out of necessity.
It's like they can't see that one hand feeds the other and that if they give a little they will get a lot in return with benefit of a stable society where inflation grows and so do their profits and everyone is happy.
Seems to me the cycle is broken and they just keep breaking it further ?!?
The good news is you can start your own business, and run it as you see fit. If your ideas are viable, you should be a great success.
I dont understand a lot of things companies and business owners do.
Quote:
Germany and Japan appear to be much more focused on long term viability, which means investing in quality control and a properly trained and motivated workforce.
Like Takada? And Audi/VW who forged emission data to maximize their profits?
Germany and Japan appear to be much more focused on long term viability, which means investing in quality control and a properly trained and motivated workforce.
Like Takada? And Audi/VW who forged emission data to maximize their profits?
Last edited:
A lot of great points. Sorry I have been MIA, I was swamped at work today. (Fair paying employer that has a Google type work environment.) Our customers literally vomit money at us because they are thrilled with the service we provide.
That there should be a great real world example!
That there should be a great real world example!
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
Sounds like money laundering is much needed …
Last edited:
I wouldn't doubt some of that is going on because they have a lot of family working for the company (privately owned) and they have started a lot of side businesses that buy/sell stuff to us on paper sort of thing.
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
Joke about vomit
Last edited:
Oh Duh on my part. I get it now.
Originally Posted By: bubbatime
Originally Posted By: Donald
Thus why decreasing the corp tax rate to 20% will allow companies to do more stock buy-backs and not create more jobs, help the economy. It helps the owners of the stock, the rich people and maybe 401K owners.
Don't you think having the highest corporate tax rate in the world incentivizes corporations to ship manufacturing overseas? Cut the tax rate from what it is now, to 20% with incentives to bring manufacturing back to America, will ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY create more jobs. The govt is not the answer. Remove excess regulation and lower the corporate tax rate, and corporations could afford to manufacture stateside again.
One gets tired of reading and hearing this nonsense.
Manufacturing companies pay very low effective tax rates in the US as a result of the many preferences available to owners of and investors in physical capital like plant and equipment.
It's those companies who are invested mainly in producing intellectual property that suffer relatively high rates in this country.
Can anyone think of a major US producer of intellectual property that contracts most of its physical product manufacturing to lower wage venues? I'll give you a clue in that its named after a pome and has a cutsie logo.
Maybe they'd bring that work to our country if we offered them a negative tax rate?
There was a time when American corporations tried hard to be good corporate citizens.
That day has long since passed and we saw this very clearly in the recession that began in 2008. Irresponsible short-term profit maximization among the moneylenders led to long-term economic disaster for most of us.
Originally Posted By: Donald
Thus why decreasing the corp tax rate to 20% will allow companies to do more stock buy-backs and not create more jobs, help the economy. It helps the owners of the stock, the rich people and maybe 401K owners.
Don't you think having the highest corporate tax rate in the world incentivizes corporations to ship manufacturing overseas? Cut the tax rate from what it is now, to 20% with incentives to bring manufacturing back to America, will ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY create more jobs. The govt is not the answer. Remove excess regulation and lower the corporate tax rate, and corporations could afford to manufacture stateside again.
One gets tired of reading and hearing this nonsense.
Manufacturing companies pay very low effective tax rates in the US as a result of the many preferences available to owners of and investors in physical capital like plant and equipment.
It's those companies who are invested mainly in producing intellectual property that suffer relatively high rates in this country.
Can anyone think of a major US producer of intellectual property that contracts most of its physical product manufacturing to lower wage venues? I'll give you a clue in that its named after a pome and has a cutsie logo.
Maybe they'd bring that work to our country if we offered them a negative tax rate?
There was a time when American corporations tried hard to be good corporate citizens.
That day has long since passed and we saw this very clearly in the recession that began in 2008. Irresponsible short-term profit maximization among the moneylenders led to long-term economic disaster for most of us.
Originally Posted By: CT8
Originally Posted By: Leo99
Why do you think inflation is a good thing?
The talking heads on the TV says so.
It's all relative. If income is increased then folks have more money to spend. That's what you want, right? When people have more money to spend, prices can increase because people have more money to spend and will spend the extra amount. That's inflation in a nutshell and then we're right back to where we started. No extra income. Poor folks are even poorer. What little money they have is worth less.
You haven't gained anything; you've lost unless your income increases faster than the inflation rate/COL. Everyone just makes a little more money and things cost a little bit more. Since currency is fiat money - it's just a piece of paper we all agree is worth what it's worth, inflation just makes it worth a less, therefor we need more of it to purchase things.
Originally Posted By: Leo99
Why do you think inflation is a good thing?
The talking heads on the TV says so.
It's all relative. If income is increased then folks have more money to spend. That's what you want, right? When people have more money to spend, prices can increase because people have more money to spend and will spend the extra amount. That's inflation in a nutshell and then we're right back to where we started. No extra income. Poor folks are even poorer. What little money they have is worth less.
You haven't gained anything; you've lost unless your income increases faster than the inflation rate/COL. Everyone just makes a little more money and things cost a little bit more. Since currency is fiat money - it's just a piece of paper we all agree is worth what it's worth, inflation just makes it worth a less, therefor we need more of it to purchase things.
- Status
Similar threads
