What have you lost at work due to recession?

nooshinjohn

Amherst wrote: »

Here lies the root of the problem, no checks and balance for management up to ceo salaries. Average worker salaries falling. Business ethics non-existent, for the most part.
Sheer greed, not sustainable. 50X to 1000X average worker salaries??? (include write offs and perks).

This thought process is the root of the problem. To assume that the owner of a company owes an employee more than a decent wage for a day's work. Benefits such as health care, paid time off, etc... are just that, BENEFITS! What is wrong with Amherst's line of thought is that is Socialism/Communism at it's finest, and has no place in a Capitalist, free market system. Socialism/Communism have no place in a Representative Republic, and therefore will not work in the United States of America, unless there is some sort of "fundamental transformation".


Since when did it become so fashionable to trash someone because they took the risks and made the right moves along the way to become successful, and where in the Constitution is such a persuit frowned upon or otherwise made to be illegal?

Where the real tragedy lies is with a system that punishes success and rewards failure by taking from those that have done well and gives it to those that refuse to try. We have an education system that teaches kids how to fail rather than succeed. They are taught to play the victim and that they should be given what they want rather than work for it. They are not taught the skills needed to create or lead, rather, they are taught to follow, indoctrinated in the culture of dependence and see no way out but to escape in the latest video game or worse.

The fix is to teach self respect, self worth and entrepeneurship at an early age... and to stop awarding trophies for second place.

kevhed72

Not sure how this turned into another politcial thread, but since it did....VOTE 3RD PARTY next time.

On the actual question at hand....5% + No RSP matching (equals 500.00 a year)...oh, and now I get to travel to do my job. But, it could be much worse, so I am not complaining.

Amherst

nooshinjohn wrote: »

This thought process is the root of the problem. To assume that the owner of a company owes an employee more than a decent wage for a day's work. Benefits such as health care, paid time off, etc... are just that, BENEFITS!


Since when did it become so fashionable to trash someone because they took the risks and made the right moves along the way to become successful, and where in the Constitution is such a persuit frowned upon or otherwise made to be illegal?

Where the real tragedy lies is with a system that punishes success and rewards failure by taking from those that have done well and gives it to those that refuse to try. We have an education system that teaches kids how to fail rather than succeed. They are taught to play the victim and that they should be given what they want rather than work for it. They are not taught the skills needed to create or lead, rather, they are taught to follow, indoctrinated in the culture of dependence and see no way out but to escape in the latest video game or worse.

The fix is to teach self respect, self worth and entrepeneurship at an early age... and to stop awarding trophies for second place.

Sorry you feel this way John, but it doesn't fly. Fact: adjusted for inflation average salaries are falling and have been for decades. Upper management and CEO salaries skyrocketing.

I am very familiar with today's "business model" (former business owner) and the greed has surpassed everything else. Again 50X to 1000X, not sustainable.

Edit: Failed to mention, no entrepreneur has any value without his workers.

wz2p7j

nooshinjohn wrote: »

This thought process is the root of the problem. To assume that the owner of a company owes an employee more than a decent wage for a day's work. Benefits such as health care, paid time off, etc... are just that, BENEFITS! What is wrong with Amherst's line of thought is that is Socialism/Communism at it's finest, and has no place in a Capitalist, free market system. Socialism/Communism have no place in a Representative Republic, and therefore will not work in the United States of America, unless there is some sort of "fundamental transformation".


Since when did it become so fashionable to trash someone because they took the risks and made the right moves along the way to become successful, and where in the Constitution is such a persuit frowned upon or otherwise made to be illegal?

Where the real tragedy lies is with a system that punishes success and rewards failure by taking from those that have done well and gives it to those that refuse to try. We have an education system that teaches kids how to fail rather than succeed. They are taught to play the victim and that they should be given what they want rather than work for it. They are not taught the skills needed to create or lead, rather, they are taught to follow, indoctrinated in the culture of dependence and see no way out but to escape in the latest video game or worse.

The fix is to teach self respect, self worth and entrepeneurship at an early age... and to stop awarding trophies for second place.

+100

Our education system teaches conformity and respect for authority (without question), which is probably necessary to maintain a stable society. Yet absolutely has the pitfalls you mention above.

Chris

nooshinjohn

The beauty of the way things used to work, if an employee was so unhappy with his or her condition, they were free to leave for wherever the grass was greener. This is where all the benefits came from in the first place. In order to attract the best talent, and keep them, companies started offering benefits to their employees, and this has worked very well. In times such as these, the benefits people are loosing and are upset about here are the first to go in an effort to keep people working.

The other option for the dis-satisfied worker is to strike out on their own and start a business of their own. This avenue is fraught with peril these days and with government regulation, is COSTLY to say the least. It costs over half a MILLION just to want to drive a cab in New York City!!! To open a restaurant where I live is 125k just to get through the permit process. It is no small wonder that 9 of ten small businesses fail in the first year with that kind of burden.

While I do concede that greed does in fact play a role, it is not something that should be addressed unless the company fails because of it. Typically such companies would have a board of directors that are in control of what the executives are paid, and it is they that have the power to change things.

My comments largely however, are addressed at the Mom&Pop businesses out there with 50 or fewer employees. If they want a new Mercedes every week, it's their money and they should be able to do as they wish with it. If you work for a business that does that and you don't like it, find another job. Me personally... I would stay put because if they have that kind of money for new cars all the time, they are less likely to cut me loose any time soon, so long as I do my job.

jdhdiggs

With regards to CEO saleries:

If you could hire (as owner/board of directors):

1). a guy for 100K/year and he'd lead your company to $10mill/yr profit (2x your avg employees salary)
2). A different guy for 10Mill/yr and he leads your company to a $60Mill/yr profit... (200x svg salary)
3). A third candidate for 20Mill.yr for 100mill/yr profit (400x)

Which one do you hire? I'd hire #3 and be able to expand the business and hire more people....

WilliamM2

I would stay put because if they have that kind of money for new cars all the time, they are less likely to cut me loose any time soon, so long as I do my job.

Our company had over 300 employees. They have laid 80% of them off. Of the ones left, less than half of us are full time, and they cut more peoples hours each week.

So much for your theory.

nooshinjohn

Amherst wrote: »

Sorry you feel this way John, but it doesn't fly. Fact: adjusted for inflation average salaries are falling and have been for decades. Upper management and CEO salaries skyrocketing.

I am very familiar with today's "business model" (former business owner) and the greed has surpassed everything else. Again 50X to 1000X, not sustainable.

Edit: Failed to mention, no entrepreneur has any value without his workers.

Though you facts may be correct, you are not correct in how you use them here.
If you want to fix the condition of the american worker, you must first fix the conditions that affect them. The EPA/IRS and other government entities have all but killed the manufacturing sector, and what little they left behind, the labor unions picked clean. If you question this, ask yourself why companies such as Subaru can build cars here and be PROFITABLE... Employees there have full coverage benefits and make almost thirty bucks an hour. There is no union, and they don't need one. If you want to get good paying jobs here at home, get rid of the factors that caused them to leave here in the first place, and offer incentives to return. STOP PUNISHING THEM!!

As for your added remarks, I couldn't agree more. How much should a small business pay their workers? Let's assume you have a company that employs just 5 people. At ten bucks an hour, it will cost you 104k just to pay their wages, and add another 50%for such things as fico/unemployment comp/insurance, for a total of 150k/year for 5 employees. There are all kinds of different businesses out there, but I will submit to you that in order for you to have any chance of success regardless of the business you are in with the employee costs outlined, your net revenue per year would need to exceed 1 million dollars because the government alone will take damn near 50% of what you have taken in, and if you are lucky to survive, there may be a 75k per year check left over for your yearly salary, of which you will also loose 30% to taxes.

Then you have all the headaches, heartaches and problems that go along with owning a business such as hiring, firing and lawsuits...

Sounds like a hell of a lot of work for 40k take home, doesn't it?

The moral of the story is remove the burden from the backs of the American people and watch what happens. The record of the 1980's taught us that my thoughts are more than just theory, they work and do so every single time they are tried. They did so in the 1920's, and again in the 1960's...

Amherst

Jdhdiggs:
"With regards to CEO saleries:

If you could hire (as owner/board of directors):

1). a guy for 100K/year and he'd lead your company to $10mill/yr profit (2x your avg employees salary)
2). A different guy for 10Mill/yr and he leads your company to a $60Mill/yr profit... (200x svg salary)
3). A third candidate for 20Mill.yr for 100mill/yr profit (400x)

Which one do you hire? I'd hire #3 and be able to expand the business and hire more people...."


You have missed the point, it's not what the current value of a particular position is.

But at what point does the disparity become economically unsustainable?


Off soapbox...over and out!

nooshinjohn

WilliamM2 wrote: »

Our company had over 300 employees. They have laid 80% of them off. Of the ones left, less than half of us are full time, and they cut more peoples hours each week.

So much for your theory.

Sounds like the folks you work for have a screwed up sense of business as well as an effed up moral compass, and there will aways be idiots out there. Your situation is an exception and I would not work for them if I were in your shoes.

Most owners care about their employees and would do anything to keep the doors open and people working.

nooshinjohn

Amherst wrote: »

Jdhdiggs:
"With regards to CEO saleries:

If you could hire (as owner/board of directors):

1). a guy for 100K/year and he'd lead your company to $10mill/yr profit (2x your avg employees salary)
2). A different guy for 10Mill/yr and he leads your company to a $60Mill/yr profit... (200x svg salary)
3). A third candidate for 20Mill.yr for 100mill/yr profit (400x)

Which one do you hire? I'd hire #3 and be able to expand the business and hire more people...."


You have missed the point, it's not what the current value of a particular position is.

But at what point does the disparity become economically unsustainable?


Off soapbox...over and out!

In a capitalist system, it NEVER does. If a company fails due to malfeasance of it's board or it's CEO's, they are held to account via the legal process. This is as it should be. There should never come a time when someone tells a company how much someone can make.

cnh

Hey guys,

We've had this 'discussion' so many times I can't even count them. And NONE of you ever convinces the other side. Like two ships passing at sea. Leave the politics at home already!

Your own government and the people 'you' elect can't agree or resolve these issues. What makes ANYONE think 'they' can.

Cool down already....both sides. Preaching to the 'choir' doesn't accomplish anything.

Letting off some steam in this economy is good but let's not harangue each other.

It's an AUDIO forum, after all!

And as far as Communism and Capitalism, well, I ought to know more about that than anyone here. Because look where I am! And I remain silent.

cnh

Amherst

nooshinjohn wrote: »

In a capitalist system, it NEVER does. If a company fails due to malfeasance of it's board or it's CEO's, they are held to account via the legal process. This is as it should be. There should never come a time when someone tells a company how much someone can make.

I think we are about to find out how true this is.

hearingimpared

WilliamM2 wrote: »

The company I work for is the same as his. Family owned, just trying to make it through. Though they aren't the nicest people I ever worked for, and I believe they are just trying to save their own butts, and not real concerned about the employees., after all, they still buy themselves. and upper management (other family members) a new Mercedes every year.

For the first time in over 30 years in the work force, I actually want to be laid off. It would give me more time to find something else, and I could do without the stress. I've saved enough to last for a good long while, years even, so I'm not too worried. Although laying out $10K in medical bills this year didn't help any...

I hear you on that one Bro. We are still wreeling from the acute pancreatitis I had that landed me in the hospital for three 10 day stints over three months not to mention the 12 to 15 ER visits due to it two years ago. Medical bills and medication bills are what have kept us in the poor house for the last two years.

It seems to me that your familiy owned company is still doing well with the buying of Mercedes for themselves and upper management. I don't begrudge them the fact that they do that as I said I'm all for companies making money but it seems to me that by keeping the Mercedes practice up they are taking it out of their employees benefits. God forbid they should consider going to a less expensive car and save their employees benefits. Notice they are taking care of upper management whom they deem as the money makers in their company.

I was in executive management the last 15 years of my career and I made sure I did right by the company but I NEVER forgot about my employees and their needs as I never forgot where I came from. As a matter of fact I went to bat for them on several occasions to get them good medical benefits and proper raises and base salaries and trust me when I say these people that owned the company were as cheap and bottom line driven as any I've ever encountered.

billbillw

I've lost pay, something like 10 furlough days so far. Each adds up to about a 5% cut for each paycheck that falls in a furlough time period. We've also had hiring freezes for about 2 years straight. We are now operating at around half of our normal full staff. We've eliminated one whole unit (out of 4) and still have many vacancies. We've cut all out of state travel (including for training), our vehicle fleet is a disgrace and only getting worse. Next year's budget isn't any better. It will probably be 2012 before we see any improvement and that's only if State Revenues start to recover.

This is all despite the fact that we are a totally self funded program that collects over $15M in fees each year (not from taxpayers). The General Assembly only gives us back $3M of the money we collect.

vc69

We have had our contribution to our retirement plan go up 1.2% and insurance premiums have risen. Pay has been frozen so in effect, our take home pay has shrunk. For my part, I will take home nearly $1k less this year than last and it will be worse next year as insurance premiums will rise again. Very frustrating.

kevhed72

So alot of folks so far have posted on how the economic downturn has effected them...and what were the root causes of the economic downturn?
Too much government regulation, not enough government regulation, or just plain ineffective gov't regulation? Something to mull over rather than calling each other Communists or Capitalists or whatever. And one more thought...what has been put in place to prevent another similiar economic crash?

vc69

nooshinjohn wrote: »

In a capitalist system, it NEVER does. If a company fails due to malfeasance of it's board or it's CEO's, they are held to account via the legal process. This is as it should be. There should never come a time when someone tells a company how much someone can make.

Seriously? Explain how the banking crisis was handled then?

Or better yet, just drop all the effing proselytizing. We all know how capitalism is supposed to work, that it doesn't always, and that you are a consummate, patriotic american.

nooshinjohn

kevhed72 wrote: »

So alot of folks so far have posted on how the economic downturn has effected them...and what were the root causes of the economic downturn?
Too much government regulation, not enough government regulation, or just plain ineffective gov't regulation? Something to mull over rather than calling each other Communists or Capitalists or whatever. And one more thought...what has been put in place to prevent another similiar economic crash?

No name-calling has taken place Kev.... just a solid discussion and debate of the topic.

I would like to pose a question to those that think CEO pay and the evil corporations are the trouble... Have you stopped to look at the big picture? With all the demonization of large companies and CEO's/Owners on all levels, do you not see the real problem?

The reason for the demonization of the business sector is to give the American people a villian and pull our eyes away from the real crooks. The real malfeasance is not in the business world, and the reason we are all suffering has nothing to do with CEO pay... the real trouble is a 13 TRILLION dollar Federal defecit, which was brought about by the Government's own policies, and an additional 120 TRILLION DOLLARS worth of unfunded liabilities...
Tell me, do you trust big Brother to run business?

I know I don't... and I would pay a CEO worth his salt 100 million a year plus bonuses to fix it.

hearingimpared

nooshinjohn wrote: »

This thought process is the root of the problem. To assume that the owner of a company owes an employee more than a decent wage for a day's work. Benefits such as health care, paid time off, etc... are just that, BENEFITS! What is wrong with Amherst's line of thought is that is Socialism/Communism at it's finest, and has no place in a Capitalist, free market system. Socialism/Communism have no place in a Representative Republic, and therefore will not work in the United States of America, unless there is some sort of "fundamental transformation".


Since when did it become so fashionable to trash someone because they took the risks and made the right moves along the way to become successful, and where in the Constitution is such a persuit frowned upon or otherwise made to be illegal?

Where the real tragedy lies is with a system that punishes success and rewards failure by taking from those that have done well and gives it to those that refuse to try. We have an education system that teaches kids how to fail rather than succeed. They are taught to play the victim and that they should be given what they want rather than work for it. They are not taught the skills needed to create or lead, rather, they are taught to follow, indoctrinated in the culture of dependence and see no way out but to escape in the latest video game or worse.

The fix is to teach self respect, self worth and entrepeneurship at an early age... and to stop awarding trophies for second place.

That in red John is BS. Employers figure a base salary as well as the benefits as the total package of wages. When I was working, I made sure that my salary was reflected also in my benefit package. For them to take away my benefits that I negotiated for is tantamount to reducing my salary. If I didn't like it I made sure to raise a stink, if they didn't fix it I walked.

A free market, capitalistic society is driven by competition and that concept seems to have all but disappeared. There was a time and not too long ago when employers couldn't find the best talent for their positions so to get them they offered good a salaries augmented by great benefits and perks.

No not communism or socialism, and I hate to jump on the greed bandwagon, but the corporate world has changed dramatically since the '90s.

I find it hard to believe that the spirit of competition has diminished heavily because of overseas outsourcing.

BTW I don't "assume that the owner of a company owes an employee more than a decent wage for a day's work." Benefits were always part of that decent wage and a lure to having good employees.

After my first 10 years of working for a corporation, I found that I could play the corporate game. Quit my 10 year job, went to a company which would increase my salary and benefits by 1/3rd then do the same every two years. After a short while I was making money hand over fist and was able to demand great benefits and perks. I played their game and won out. It seems to me that that has all changed and I am not going to attribute it to the economy, I am going to attribute it corporations looking out the bottom line and taking out of the hides of their employees . . . why you might ask, because for some reason they can. Sure government regulations cost corporations more but they always find a way to get around it and increase their bottom line.

Amherst

nooshinjohn wrote: »

"I would pay a CEO worth his salt 100 million a year plus bonuses to fix it."

Why? These are the creators.

And no big brother is needed, just some scruples from those running the show.

nooshinjohn

Amherst wrote: »

Why? These are the creators..

The Government CREATES nothing. I said I would gladly pay a top notch CEO 100 million to fix the Government, make any needed cuts and get everything back in the black. I know it will never happen, but it is nice to think about. Funny thing is that if the nations finances were looked at the same way we would look at any corporation, our elected officials would all be behind bars on SEC violations.

Amherst wrote: »

And no big brother is needed, just some scruples from those running the show.

True, but we cannot teach values anymore in our schools.


***I would like to appologise to those that see a political discussion shaping up here. It is unintended, and is only a byproduct of having any type of sound economic discussion. The fact they need to be mentioned at all is due to fact that they are into every facet of the private sector, and their role cannot be overlooked if we are to have an honest discourse on the topic. I will post no more in this thread...

j allen

It's been sort of win/lose for me. I've lost out on paid vacation, medical, and I'm down to one day off a week. We've lost business, and lost employees due to pay cuts. I haven't had a pay cut because they consider me indispensable, for now. In fact, I'm making quite a bit more money, because I'm an hourly employee, and I'm putting in overtime to cover for the holes in staffing due to cuts.

Kind of a tough call as to whether it's good or bad. I can't go to the doctor without cash up front, but on the other hand, I'm much more likely to have that cash just laying around.

One thing is for sure, I'm a lot more tired than I was before

mrbigbluelight

jdhdiggs wrote: »

With regards to CEO saleries:

If you could hire (as owner/board of directors):

1). a guy for 100K/year and he'd lead your company to $10mill/yr profit (2x your avg employees salary)
2). A different guy for 10Mill/yr and he leads your company to a $60Mill/yr profit... (200x svg salary)
3). A third candidate for 20Mill.yr for 100mill/yr profit (400x)

Which one do you hire? I'd hire #3 and be able to expand the business and hire more people....

That doesn't always work.

Enron.

concealer404

I lost dish soap in the break rooms.

I'm not so sure i like this thread. I feel like an a-hole for typing that.

jdhdiggs

mrbigbluelight wrote: »

That doesn't always work.

Enron.

I guess you missed the point, here it is again: Paying money for COMPETENT leadership is worth far more to a company as a whole (including the employees) than keeping the CEO's salary some "reasonable" multiple of it's employees salary.

hearingimpared

nooshinjohn wrote: »

The Government CREATES nothing. I said I would gladly pay a top notch CEO 100 million to fix the Government, make any needed cuts and get everything back in the black.

WAAAAAAAAAAAA A brilliant CEO making $400,000 a year with benefits instead of the millions he could be making in the private sector!!! LMAO!:D

sucks2beme

The economy has hurt business a lot. But bad business practices
helped put it there. A lot of all the big gains in the late 90's and 200x years
were smoke and mirrors. High energy costs and taking manufactoring overseas
has sucked the robustness right out of us. Most new jobs pay far less than the old ones, with litlle or no bennies.
The low end labor is being done by illegal labor, manufactoring is gone, the the tech jobs are goingto India, and higher end jobs now require a masters as a minimum. And it doesn't look like any jobs are ever going to come back here.
Retail is hurting, offices are being vacated, and the commercial real estate crash is coming on strong.
Doesn't sound so rosy, does it?

Toolfan66

We had paycuts a few months ago, But we got it back about a month ago..

Amherst

sucks2beme wrote: »

The economy has hurt business a lot. But bad business practices
helped put it there. A lot of all the big gains in the late 90's and 200x years
were smoke and mirrors. High energy costs and taking manufactoring overseas
has sucked the robustness right out of us. Most new jobs pay far less than the old ones, with litlle or no bennies.
The low end labor is being done by illegal labor, manufactoring is gone, the the tech jobs are goingto India, and higher end jobs now require a masters as a minimum. And it doesn't look like any jobs are ever going to come back here.
Retail is hurting, offices are being vacated, and the commercial real estate crash is coming on strong.
Doesn't sound so rosy, does it?

Just the hard truth. This effect will go around, top to bottom, it has started.