Laidoff

[PFSS]

Re: Laidoff

Great so now we have twice as many people that need to be managed, twice as much work that needs to be managed and the profit to the company is exactly the same as before. Except that now twice as many things can go wrong and now they need to hire a few more management people to manage the extra jobs and workers which will actually reduces the over all profit.

Or maybe the reduction from $100 to $50/hour will lead to three times as many people wanting their stuff painted, which would put the company owner in a much better position than they would be in charging $100/hour - though sucks for the painters.

Greeters and baggers? are you ****ting me? You can't go to the store without needing someone to stop you at the door to go "hello"? and baggers? seriously. They need staff to bag your groceries? What's next? Do Americans need people to chew their food at McDonald's?

I would be ashamed if I had to stand around while someone bagged my groceries. Get the **** out of my way I'l bag my own groceries. Go back to school or something

I'm from the London where strangers who say 'hello' to you are normally planning on mugging you, greeters always put me on edge. Personally I hate it when people do that stuff for me but a lot of people like the extra service. Whether you agree with baggers and greeters or not, the point still stands - there may well be jobs a company would ideally like people to do but can't justify them at a wage of $X/hour but can justify it at $Y/hour (Y<X).

 

[BobCox2]

Re: Laidoff

Around here a lot of the Greeters and Baggers are Seniors and Mildly Retarded People not College kids.

 

[phor]

Re: Laidoff

Whether you agree with baggers and greeters or not, the point still stands - there may well be jobs a company would ideally like people to do but can't justify them at a wage of $X/hour but can justify it at $Y/hour (Y<X).

That point is a moot one though.
Even if you believe that companies might hire more people if they were to drastically cut their wages, there is nothing positive that could come out of that.

Even though more people were working, they are making next to nothing. Probably barely enough to live off of.
All of those workers will feel terrible about their jobs. That feeling will affect the whole community in a negative way.
It may as well be slavery at that point.
The income gap between the "upper class" and the "working class" would widen until something really terrible happened.
History would just be repeating itself.

Instead, they should be structuring the pay scale in such a way that 1% of the employees aren't making 90% of the wages.
But that requires a company to act appropriately.
In small business, if they don't act appropirately, then someone else could form a competing company and take their business. The constant threat of competition drives companies to do the right thing.
But in the wal-mart example, it would take years upon years and massive amounts of capital to get to a point where you could compete against them.

In the corporate world, they often try to act like their decisions ARE morally bound because they're "protecting their investors". In my opinion, protecting those employees who are giving their livelihoods to your company should be more important than protecting someone who already has enough excess money to invest in the first place.

 

[Johnny]

Re: Laidoff

Okay I have been holding off this one for long enough but just go put your ignorance on the subject to light a little:

maybe the reduction

you might have a lot of people, various purposes, if the price, you might,

You're not exactly radiating knowledge here when you think reducing prices by half will now suddenly triple the amount of jobs. You're essentially pulling it all out of your butt. I'm going to lay some truth on you. The government here recently made it so when you employ workers for your home then 50% of the work cost is tax deductible. This effectively reduced work cost by just that. 50% the increase in work was 10%. Not 100% and then 200% as you suggested it "might" be but 10%.

Because the prices are not that outlandish to begin with that there's an army of people waiting to hire them but the prices are stopping them.

 

[jmervyn]

Re: Laidoff

This is not a failure of free market but rather a failing of central economic planning.

:shhh: You'll only get Donny and Johnny even more upset.

 

[PFSS]

Re: Laidoff

Okay I have been holding off this one for long enough but just go put your ignorance on the subject to light a little:

As you noted - I said 'maybe' and 'might', I didn't say the prices changes 'would' cause such increases in demand.

In almost any case a reduction in prices will lead to an increase in demand it just depends on how much of an increase which depends highly on the market conditions for that specific product/service.

In there will always be a point where a point where a reduction in rates will lead to a reduction in profits because the increase in custom is not enough, likewise there is always a point where an increase in rates will lead to a loss as you'll start to lose customers.

That point is a moot one though.
Even if you believe that companies might hire more people if they were to drastically cut their wages, there is nothing positive that could come out of that.

Except for the people who would otherwise be unemployed.