punked Posted December 4, 2011 Report Share Posted December 4, 2011 And given the way things are today with increased productivity, those jobs aren't necessary anymore. An employer wants to hire as little employees as possible and have the work as automated as possible. Then wages per work hour should go up. That is how Henry Ford did it as productivity went up at least at the first of his career. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted December 5, 2011 Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 Then wages per work hour should go up. That is how Henry Ford did it as productivity went up at least at the first of his career. An employer has to maintain an efficiency curve. Pay to little, you get little to no productivity and it hurts profit. Pay to much and your employees get complacent and lazy and productivity goes down. The employer has to hit the sweet spot to maximize production. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted December 5, 2011 Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 Then they vote in the union... and the game, she is over... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted December 5, 2011 Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 An employer has to maintain an efficiency curve. Pay to little, you get little to no productivity and it hurts profit. Pay to much and your employees get complacent and lazy and productivity goes down. The employer has to hit the sweet spot to maximize production. Well sure and this is all explained through minimum wage legislation and million dollar CEO bonuses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted December 5, 2011 Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 (edited) this is why taxpayer defined donations are the only means of fair service delivery. Transitioning to a 0 income tax base and subscriber based fees for non essential services is the only way the political econonmy can be removed from the oligarchy of the ruling class The education system and immigrant testing requirements should be sufficient to insure that most of the public service tasks are known by an educated public.. this while insuring the government streamlines public demands so it is kept lay instead of legalize. There are many technological capacities that would replace 99% of any public need for a public serivce. Parliament can make comittees or royal comissions and force people to give professional information at the bar if it needs to. Offering more post for voluntary service provisioning and pushing civil service requirements on senators and members of commons is a way more seats equals more service.. that and getting the second and thurd ect place finishers ombuds person roles as public servants, serving their constituents, You don't know how you see the inside but the public ought to be the civil service.. it is civil defence and public order that the feds should, along side the fubancial system be conse trating on, what don't they know? This isn't reasuring, If there arn't services the oublic is willing to lay for what is the point there is only so much free money the government ca make before superinflation kicks in - and that is the window they have to pay their costs. I'm all for more crown corps but we need to put people where they are needed.. just axing people isn't good though.. they should be rolling them off with non essential service into crown corps to see if the governme t will support their services.. operating them as not for profits or for profits... have sime grant rollover funding for them and see if their services will be supported by the public. But just before christmas my god, Edited December 5, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted December 5, 2011 Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 Well sure and this is all explained through minimum wage legislation and million dollar CEO bonuses. Umm there are not enough CEOs in the market place and the fact that their job involves decision making worth millions of dollars justifies their salaries. They get paid as little as the board of directors wants to pay them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted December 5, 2011 Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 Umm there are not enough CEOs in the market place and the fact that their job involves decision making worth millions of dollars justifies their salaries. Puh-lease. For every company that needs a CEO, has one. For every CEO in the world, there are many waiting and willing to take their place. This usually happens when a CEO vacates their position. CEO's are not some rare commodity on the market and not all CEO's make decisions "worth millions of dollars." They get paid as little as the board of directors wants to pay them. No, they get paid as much as the board of directors believe they can afford. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted December 5, 2011 Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 Puh-lease. For every company that needs a CEO, has one. Yes, but does every company have a good one? The answer is no. A lot of them aren't much good to the companies they run. There is very intense competition for the best CEOs, the ones with proven track records of making companies thrive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted December 5, 2011 Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 Yes, but does every company have a good one? The answer is no. A lot of them aren't much good to the companies they run. There is very intense competition for the best CEOs, the ones with proven track records of making companies thrive. Well that isn't the point now is it? Blueblood seems to think there are "not enough CEO's in the market place" so even you disagree with him. Not only are there more than enough, there are also many waiting in the wings for their chance. And when we are talking about blueblood's economic principles of lo/hi wages, and the "very intense competition for the best CEOs" (thereby suggesting a higher compensation rate) how does one twist their world around enough to justify the hi-pay CEO's of those banks and companies that received bail-out funds all the while not interupting their lucrative bonuses? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted December 5, 2011 Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 Well that isn't the point now is it? Blueblood seems to think there are "not enough CEO's in the market place" so even you disagree with him. Not only are there more than enough, there are also many waiting in the wings for their chance. And when we are talking about blueblood's economic principles of lo/hi wages, and the "very intense competition for the best CEOs" (thereby suggesting a higher compensation rate) how does one twist their world around enough to justify the hi-pay CEO's of those banks and companies that received bail-out funds all the while not interupting their lucrative bonuses? Because those banks wanted the best CEOs at money could buy, they paid for what they thought was the best and it didn't pan out in the long run. Given the profitability of the banks at that point in time, their compensation was justified. If you have a problem with the bailouts, that's the govts problem for not demanding the banks nullify their contracts to management to get the bailouts. CEOs with 20+ years and a track record of making a company billions of dollars are extremely rare and their compensation is justified. And there isn't enough CEO's, even base salary is evidence of that. Had those occupiers went to business school instead of liberal arts over the years, he labour pool of CEOs would be large enough to put downward pressure on salaries. This also goes for other executives in companies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted December 5, 2011 Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 Wait a minute. First of all, Harper goes out and hires a bunch of Fed.workers and says jobs are up! Harper didn't hire hundreds of thousands of Fed workers. That's what he'd have needed to do to make any meaningfull dent in employment numbers. When is HE going to downsize his own cabinet also, that is were the money is, especially with the gold-plated pensions that WE own and pay for! Well I can't really argue with the gold-plated pensions, but cabinet expenses are a mere drop in the bucket compared to the actual budget problems we have. Laying off 10,000 fed workers > decreasing cabinet expenses, by a LONG shot. Like I said, I think it's hilarious that you'll wet your pants when Harper increases expenses, but then wet your pants even harder when he does something to decrease them. That's the very definition of a fanatical idealogue, or, in simple terms, a hack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted December 5, 2011 Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 Because those banks wanted the best CEOs at money could buy, they paid for what they thought was the best and it didn't pan out in the long run. No shit Sherlock., Which proves that no matter what you pay them, it is still a crap shoot. Given the profitability of the banks at that point in time, their compensation was justified. Any company can say this, even small start-ups with CEO's making nothing. If you have a problem with the bailouts, that's the govts problem for not demanding the banks nullify their contracts to management to get the bailouts. Which shows that no matter what you pay them, it is still a crap shoot. CEOs with 20+ years and a track record of making a company billions of dollars are extremely rare and their compensation is justified. And there isn't enough CEO's, even base salary is evidence of that. Considering no matter what you pay them, it's a crap shoot, any compensation is justified. Not only are there enough CEO's there are many more potential CEO's waiting in the wings and, give that they know it is likely a crapshoot for the boss, all they have to do is be patient. Had those occupiers went to business school instead of liberal arts over the years, he labour pool of CEOs would be large enough to put downward pressure on salaries. This also goes for other executives in companies. "occupiers" that's hilarious! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted December 5, 2011 Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 No shit Sherlock., Which proves that no matter what you pay them, it is still a crap shoot. Any company can say this, even small start-ups with CEO's making nothing. Which shows that no matter what you pay them, it is still a crap shoot. Considering no matter what you pay them, it's a crap shoot, any compensation is justified. Not only are there enough CEO's there are many more potential CEO's waiting in the wings and, give that they know it is likely a crapshoot for the boss, all they have to do is be patient. "occupiers" that's hilarious! Except its not a crap shoot. Look at HP before and after their CEO Mark Hurd got turfed for running around on his wife. It's night and day their financials. A good ceo is critical for a company, hence the difference in compensation to say the secretary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted December 5, 2011 Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 Except its not a crap shoot. Look at HP before and after their CEO Mark Hurd got turfed for running around on his wife. It's night and day their financials. A good ceo is critical for a company, hence the difference in compensation to say the secretary. And a good CEO is only good until he isn't. Despite any compensation package I mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted December 5, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 Harper didn't hire hundreds of thousands of Fed workers. That's what he'd have needed to do to make any meaningfull dent in employment numbers. Well I can't really argue with the gold-plated pensions, but cabinet expenses are a mere drop in the bucket compared to the actual budget problems we have. Laying off 10,000 fed workers > decreasing cabinet expenses, by a LONG shot. Like I said, I think it's hilarious that you'll wet your pants when Harper increases expenses, but then wet your pants even harder when he does something to decrease them. That's the very definition of a fanatical idealogue, or, in simple terms, a hack. Let me explain it to you this way. The Tories hire workers and then they use that to say in the House of Commons, jobs are increasing, we are doing it right, then when they go through the 13 Billion and add another 56+ billion, they have to let these people go because of Canada's debt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted December 5, 2011 Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 And a good CEO is only good until he isn't. Despite any compensation package I mean. That's true, and that goes for just about any worker. However, the compensation package is based on experience and the ceo's past record. A good record results in a large compensation package. Hence why they get fired. THe HP"s board of directors was so worried about the company's brand being hurt by Mark Hurd running around on his wife in the wake of the Tiger Woods scandal, they canned him. THey estimated the loss of the brand's worth to be more than the ceo compensation so they canned him. However what the board didn't realize was that Hurd's decisions made them billions, which really stood out when he was gone. I imagine the shareholders at HP were furious at the board and some members of the board might have got the boot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted December 5, 2011 Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 Let me explain it to you this way. The Tories hire workers and then they use that to say in the House of Commons, jobs are increasing, we are doing it right, then when they go through the 13 Billion and add another 56+ billion, they have to let these people go because of Canada's debt. They can let them go because the private sector is doing its share of hiring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted December 5, 2011 Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 They can let them go because the private sector is doing its share of hiring. So you are saying unemployment is going down? Interesting.... where do you get your figures? http://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCATRE7B10QB20111202 Net job losses totaled 18,600 jobs in the month following a hefty 54,000 drop in October, Statistics Canada said on Friday, pointing to a poor economic performance in the final quarter of the year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted December 5, 2011 Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 So you are saying unemployment is going down? Interesting.... where do you get your figures? http://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCATRE7B10QB20111202 It's going to go down a bit when the public sector quits hiring. However the private sector is holding its own and producing more full time work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted December 5, 2011 Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 It's going to go down a bit when the public sector quits hiring. However the private sector is holding its own and producing more full time work. No it isn't. 86,000 jobs were lost. None of these in the public sector. Where are you getting your figures? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted December 5, 2011 Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 It does? May I presume you live far out in rural Canada, grow your own food, and make no use of any services either provided by or overseen/supervised by the federal government? You get no pension, no child tax benefits, no GST rebates or any other money from the federal government? You do not travel across the border, and eat no food and purchase no good which does so? No, I do not get any pensions, GST rebates or any other funds from the govt. I do often get an income tax refund, a result of habving overpaid taxes. I do travel to other countries , and pay hefty airport and security suircharges every time I do. I do buy imported food and I do pay retail prices for same. Harper has increased the federal civil service by 10% in a time when population increased about 3%, and he did so without introducing any significant new programs that require lots of staff. There should be no problems at all whacking back that total by 30,000 or so staff- and without affecting any programs, since none were created when the jobs were created. Easy peasy. Since we have been told forever that our civil service is highly skilled professionals, the best in the world, it won't be hard to find other work. It will be hard to find better work and/or benefits- but that is a problem all of us must face from time to tome, no reason for govt employees to be exempt from reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted December 5, 2011 Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 No it isn't. 86,000 jobs were lost. None of these in the public sector. Where are you getting your figures? except the public sector cuts are coming. THe losses occurred in part time jobs, there was a gain of approx. 35000 and part time went down 53,000. You fail to mention sept. there was 61,000 new jobs. My link Still lower than average by a full point. THe sky isn't falling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted December 5, 2011 Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 No, I do not get any pensions, GST rebates or any other funds from the govt. So if you lose your job you won't be applying for EI right? And when you turn 65 you will turn back your CPP? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted December 6, 2011 Report Share Posted December 6, 2011 No, I do not get any pensions, GST rebates or any other funds from the govt.So if you lose your job you won't be applying for EI right? And when you turn 65 you will turn back your CPP? No, there would be no point in applying at all. I am self employed, so I won't be getting anything if the business goes belly up. I guess I'll just have to rely on myself. I know it is very hard for you to imagine an individual doing that in your Canada. Why wouldn't I collect CPP, since it is a pension plan that pays benefits only to those that contribute and I have been paying both employer and employee contributions for a long time? It is not a gift, just giving me back what I earned. If had any choice, my share of all that CPP money would go to a self directed RRSP plan but I am not permitted that option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted December 6, 2011 Report Share Posted December 6, 2011 No, there would be no point in applying at all. I am self employed, so I won't be getting anything if the business goes belly up. I guess I'll just have to rely on myself. I know it is very hard for you to imagine an individual doing that in your Canada. Why would you think it is hard for me to imagine? My brother is in the same boat, albeit his business is very successful. Why wouldn't I collect CPP, since it is a pension plan that pays benefits only to those that contribute and I have been paying both employer and employee contributions for a long time? It is not a gift, just giving me back what I earned. If had any choice, my share of all that CPP money would go to a self directed RRSP plan but I am not permitted that option. Because you pay taxes for all the other benefits you are entitled to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.