F
Footwedge
Posts: 9,265
Sep 4, 2012 8:44pm
Interesting that this story that I've harped several times here on these boards hit AOL title topics tonight. Maybe we should have a poll and see who would rather work for Henry and who would rather work for Quaker Oats?
Business owners who view their labor as merely a cost on a balance sheet are idiots.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/08/30/dear-american-companies-heres-how-to-fix-the-economy/?icid=maing-grid7|maing6|dl13|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D200734
Business owners who view their labor as merely a cost on a balance sheet are idiots.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/08/30/dear-american-companies-heres-how-to-fix-the-economy/?icid=maing-grid7|maing6|dl13|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D200734
Terry_Tate
Posts: 7,606
Sep 4, 2012 9:00pm
Footwedge;1261492 wrote:Business owners who view their labor as merely a cost on a balance sheet are idiots.
Any business owner who does that is an idiot, you are correct.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Sep 4, 2012 9:12pm
Human capital is a company's most valuable asset...until it's cost exceeds it's value.
M
Manhattan Buckeye
Posts: 7,566
Sep 4, 2012 11:29pm
"And because one company's employees are another company's customers,"
Yes, and not necessarily yours, the whole Henry Ford thing is so hackneyed and stupid I can't believe even Footwedge brings this up.
Does anyone think that the janitor at the NYC Four Seasons could afford to stay a night there? That the worker at the BMW factory in South Carolina should just go in and buy an X-5? That the secretary at Cravath, Swaine and Moore should expect to pay $800 an hour to have someone draft their will? Do Bombardier workers buy their own Lear jets?
That doesn't mean employees shouldn't be respected, but they should be paid according to skill and production, not some of sort of half-assed communist scheme.
Yes, and not necessarily yours, the whole Henry Ford thing is so hackneyed and stupid I can't believe even Footwedge brings this up.
Does anyone think that the janitor at the NYC Four Seasons could afford to stay a night there? That the worker at the BMW factory in South Carolina should just go in and buy an X-5? That the secretary at Cravath, Swaine and Moore should expect to pay $800 an hour to have someone draft their will? Do Bombardier workers buy their own Lear jets?
That doesn't mean employees shouldn't be respected, but they should be paid according to skill and production, not some of sort of half-assed communist scheme.
believer
Posts: 8,153
Sep 5, 2012 5:28am
The bottom-lineManhattan Buckeye;1261618 wrote:That doesn't mean employees shouldn't be respected, but they should be paid according to skill and production, not some of sort of half-assed communist scheme.
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Sep 5, 2012 6:11am
Correct, costs go on the income statement.Footwedge;1261492 wrote:Interesting that this story that I've harped several times here on these boards hit AOL title topics tonight. Maybe we should have a poll and see who would rather work for Henry and who would rather work for Quaker Oats?
Business owners who view their labor as merely a cost on a balance sheet are idiots.
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Sep 5, 2012 9:20am
repsqueencitybuckeye;1261686 wrote:Correct, costs go on the income statement.
O-Trap
Posts: 14,994
Sep 5, 2012 3:40pm
Footwedge;1261492 wrote:Business owners who view their labor as merely a cost on a balance sheet are idiots.
I agree with this. As a matter of fact, those who know this tend to compete well in the marketplace.
I will suggest that there is a difference between a naturally competitive advantage and a mandate, though.
lol'dqueencitybuckeye;1261686 wrote:Correct, costs go on the income statement.
O-Trap
Posts: 14,994
Sep 5, 2012 3:50pm
This needs quoted.Con_Alma;1261510 wrote:Human capital is a company's most valuable asset...until it's cost exceeds it's value.
jhay78
Posts: 1,917
Sep 5, 2012 4:24pm
Henry Ford . . . a True Anti-Semite:
http://history.hanover.edu/hhr/99/hhr99_2.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Ford
http://history.hanover.edu/hhr/99/hhr99_2.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Ford
In Germany, Ford's anti-Semitic articles from The Dearborn Independent were issued in four volumes, cumulatively titled The International Jew, the World's Foremost Problem published by Theodor Fritsch, founder of several anti-Semitic parties and a member of the Reichstag. In a letter written in 1924, Heinrich Himmler described Ford as "one of our most valuable, important, and witty fighters."[SUP][60][/SUP]
Ford is the only American mentioned in Mein Kampf.[SUP][61][/SUP][SUP][62][/SUP] Adolf Hitler wrote, "only a single great man, Ford, [who], to [the Jews'] fury, still maintains full independence...[from] the controlling masters of the producers in a nation of one hundred and twenty millions." Speaking in 1931 to a Detroit News reporter, Hitler said he regarded Ford as his "inspiration," explaining his reason for keeping Ford's life-size portrait next to his desk.[SUP][63][/SUP] Steven Watts wrote that Hitler "revered" Ford, proclaiming that "I shall do my best to put his theories into practice in Germany," and modeling the Volkswagen, the people's car, on the Model T.[SUP][64][/SUP]
F
Footwedge
Posts: 9,265
Sep 5, 2012 8:24pm
And the income statement is included in processing a balance sheet. Try again.queencitybuckeye;1261686 wrote:Correct, costs go on the income statement.
F
Footwedge
Posts: 9,265
Sep 5, 2012 8:31pm
Is there a point somewhere here? If there is, let me know. Has nothing to do with what I posted.Manhattan Buckeye;1261618 wrote:Does anyone think that the janitor at the NYC Four Seasons could afford to stay a night there? That the worker at the BMW factory in South Carolina should just go in and buy an X-5? That the secretary at Cravath, Swaine and Moore should expect to pay $800 an hour to have someone draft their will? Do Bombardier workers buy their own Lear jets?
So increased pay...which leads to better production, more interested employees in doing a great job, a much, much, much less rate of absenteeism and theft....not to mention the huge cost savings in retaining workers, thus saving the constant retraining costs...apparently means nothing to you. Hopefully, you don't own your own business.That doesn't mean employees shouldn't be respected, but they should be paid according to skill and production, not some of sort of half-assed communist scheme.
F
Footwedge
Posts: 9,265
Sep 5, 2012 8:38pm
Way to stay on topic dude. Ford also hated unions and wanted the US to take no part in WWI. Show me where Ford didn't hire Jews. Go.jhay78;1262125 wrote:Henry Ford . . . a True Anti-Semite:
http://history.hanover.edu/hhr/99/hhr99_2.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Ford
O-Trap
Posts: 14,994
Sep 5, 2012 8:39pm
So you're saying that people should get raises ("increased pay") in HOPES that they up their production? You don't believe in earning something before you get it, then?Footwedge;1262271 wrote:So increased pay...which leads to better production, more interested employees in doing a great job, a much, much, much less rate of absenteeism and theft....not to mention the huge cost savings in retaining workers, thus saving the constant retraining costs...apparently means nothing to you.
F
Footwedge
Posts: 9,265
Sep 5, 2012 8:41pm
That's nice....care to comment on Ford? Obviously his huge wage increase across the board as a "cost" never approached "exceeding it's value" now did it?Con_Alma;1261510 wrote:Human capital is a company's most valuable asset...until it's cost exceeds it's value.
F
Footwedge
Posts: 9,265
Sep 5, 2012 8:45pm
There is no "hope" about it. As a business owner yourself, you want to improve your bottom line? Pay your people 10-15 percent more than the competetion...and watch what happens.O-Trap;1262285 wrote:So you're saying that people should get raises ("increased pay") in HOPES that they up their production? You don't believe in earning something before you get it, then?
This is not rocket science....
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Sep 5, 2012 8:47pm
Depends on whether or not those are skilled positions and the person's ability to add value. You don't gain anything paying unskilled labor over market rates, unless it's piece work. People who don't do the job or don't show-up get fired in non-union shops.Footwedge;1262295 wrote:Ding, ding. ding!! As a business owner yourself, you want to improve your bottom line? Pay your people 10-15 percent more than the competetion...and watch what happens.
This is not rocket science....
J
jmog
Posts: 6,567
Sep 5, 2012 8:54pm
The point you, and the author of the article are ignoring, is that adjusted for inflation even his new higher wage was only $15/hr ($120 per day/8 hrs).Footwedge;1261492 wrote:Interesting that this story that I've harped several times here on these boards hit AOL title topics tonight. Maybe we should have a poll and see who would rather work for Henry and who would rather work for Quaker Oats?
Business owners who view their labor as merely a cost on a balance sheet are idiots.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/08/30/dear-american-companies-heres-how-to-fix-the-economy/?icid=maing-grid7|maing6|dl13|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D200734
If Ford or GM were paying their employees this much we wouldnt have had the automotive crisis we did.
Instead they were/are making twice (or more) that much.
Some people just fail at math I guess.
F
Footwedge
Posts: 9,265
Sep 5, 2012 8:57pm
No...the unskilled are the most susceptible to do a much better job if paid more than the next guy does. And what I mean by "better job" encompasses a lot of things...which I mentioned up above.gut;1262298 wrote:Depends on whether or not those are skilled positions and the person's ability to add value. You don't gain anything paying unskilled labor over market rates, unless it's piece work. People who don't do the job or don't show-up get fired in non-union shops.
Promptness
Overall attendence
Retention
Positive attitude.
A business owner who understands these things will reap the benefits far exceeding the puny increase of pay he delves out.
15 years ago, I "retrained" my main coating contractor's thnking on this, and he made a fortune by doing so. He had his laborers always calling off, coming in late, doing crappy work, no pride, having to do call backs..the list was endless. I told him to bump their pay from minimum wage to 10 bucks an hour. He never dreamed he could improve his company by doing that. His company was saved and he made a small fortune.
O-Trap
Posts: 14,994
Sep 5, 2012 9:01pm
That definitely works for the purpose of getting the better employees, no doubt. The best will go where the money is.Footwedge;1262295 wrote:There is no "hope" about it. As a business owner yourself, you want to improve your bottom line? Pay your people 10-15 percent more than the competetion...and watch what happens.
This is not rocket science....
I thought you were saying that the money will make the same employee better, and that won't. If anything, it has been my experience that paying a mediocre employee a better wage solidifies the mediocre behavior.
F
Footwedge
Posts: 9,265
Sep 5, 2012 9:01pm
Nobody missed any point there chief. The inflation adjustment factor that you cite was in fact listed in the article. Nice reach though.jmog;1262305 wrote:The point you, and the author of the article are ignoring, is that adjusted for inflation even his new higher wage was only $15/hr ($120 per day/8 hrs).
If Ford or GM were paying their employees this much we wouldnt have had the automotive crisis we did.
Instead they were/are making twice (or more) that much.
Some people just fail at math I guess.
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Sep 5, 2012 9:04pm
Promptness - fired if you're late
Overall attendence - fired if you don't show up
Retention - if you're paying market rates, then fire the supervisor
Positive attitude - doesn't really do shit for the bottom line
If you want above market rates, then you have to earn it. I would only do this via bonuses or profit sharing. You don't just hand-out above market wages and expect to reap big gains. The best approach - and I've seen it multiple places - rewards them with above market rates if and only if productivity and quality improves.
I'd also suggest it's a short-term placebo effect. People in non-incentive based systems become complacent. Always. If you have a culture that tolerates the issues you claim paying more fixes, the fix will only be temporary before people start backsliding. I've seen that, too.
Overall attendence - fired if you don't show up
Retention - if you're paying market rates, then fire the supervisor
Positive attitude - doesn't really do shit for the bottom line
If you want above market rates, then you have to earn it. I would only do this via bonuses or profit sharing. You don't just hand-out above market wages and expect to reap big gains. The best approach - and I've seen it multiple places - rewards them with above market rates if and only if productivity and quality improves.
I'd also suggest it's a short-term placebo effect. People in non-incentive based systems become complacent. Always. If you have a culture that tolerates the issues you claim paying more fixes, the fix will only be temporary before people start backsliding. I've seen that, too.
F
Footwedge
Posts: 9,265
Sep 5, 2012 9:07pm
Don't know how many you employ, but if it is more than a few, you need to change your way of thinking. Because your thinking is stinking thinking...and losing thinking.O-Trap;1262315 wrote:That definitely works for the purpose of getting the better employees, no doubt. The best will go where the money is.
I thought you were saying that the money will make the same employee better, and that won't. If anything, it has been my experience that paying a mediocre employee a better wage solidifies the mediocre behavior.
You pay your guys a little more...let them know you are paying them more than the competition is, and your productivity soars.
Occasionally, you will have to deal with a drunk or whatever. You fire him and move on. Most human beings will respond positively to a good deal. It is proven.
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Sep 5, 2012 9:07pm
And, in practice, what drives above market rates is not typically "pay better = better employees" but a premium for specific skillsets that make that employee more valuable to your company (vs. others).O-Trap;1262315 wrote:That definitely works for the purpose of getting the better employees, no doubt. The best will go where the money is.
I thought you were saying that the money will make the same employee better, and that won't. If anything, it has been my experience that paying a mediocre employee a better wage solidifies the mediocre behavior.
F
Footwedge
Posts: 9,265
Sep 5, 2012 9:12pm
SMH. Apparently this thread has flown right over your head. Not surprised. These things you listed will virtually disappear. It happens everywhere. The slickest business owners, both large and small, know this...and increase their bottom lines....not to mention improving the work life for himself...and his employees.gut;1262319 wrote:Promptness - fired if you're late
Overall attendence - fired if you don't show up
Retention - if you're paying market rates, then fire the supervisor
Positive attitude - doesn't really do shit for the bottom line