View Poll Results: How would you balance stockholder/employee interests?

Voters
9. You may not vote on this poll
  • $0 pay raise for employees 20% payout for shareholders

    0 0%
  • Raise pay to $18,850 15% payout for shareholders

    2 22.22%
  • Raise pay to $21,140 12% payout for shareholders

    2 22.22%
  • Raise pay to $22,620 10% payout for shareholders

    2 22.22%
  • Raise pay to $26,443 5% payout for shareholders

    1 11.11%
  • Raise pay to $28,716 2% payout for shareholders

    2 22.22%
  • Raise pay to $30,231 0% payout for shareholders

    0 0%
  • Raise pay to $34,019 5% loss to shareholders

    0 0%
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: Balancing Act

  1. #11
    Sage
    Winchester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,489

    Re: Balancing Act

    I've saving the money for the upcoming Obama Care fine because if I have 8,250 employees and the bottom 80% are only making $15,080/year I can guarantee you the company can not afford the mandated health insurance coverage.

  2. #12
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: Balancing Act

    Quote Originally Posted by vasuderatorrent View Post
    This sounds similar to the first option. What is difference between what you said and Option 1?
    There is no payout to share holders and, not only is there no "bonus" or payout to workers, it uses the money instead to replace low end/low skill workers with automation. This should help offset the cost of Obama-care and possible raises in minimum wages.

    What your example shows, is not an increase in profit margin due to better economy, but rather a "windfall" profit. Fortune 500 2009: Top Performers - Most Profitable Industries: Return on Revenues
    If you check the link, then the "companies are making huge profit margins" mantra doesn't play out in reality. Companies like Wal-mart, which has been at the top of Fortune 500 for awhile for near record profits is still under 4% for profit margin and around $3 per share for stock holders.

    So any CEO that sees a one year jump from around 5% to 20% for profit margin will know that it is not "due to the economy" and is a "windfall" and will use that "windfall" to stabilize future margins at a positive but much lower normal margin.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  3. #13
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: Balancing Act

    Quote Originally Posted by Gardener View Post
    If I am a typical CEO for a large company,I give myself an enormous bonus, give my top tier cronies a huge bonus, provide just enough incentive to my shareholders to keep them happy, give middle management a free coupon for a dinner at Applebees,and tell the rank and file employess that they will just have to tighten their belts,take that small reduction in pay with no bennies and be thankful they have a job.
    Thats a better option than wasting on some lazy dumbass that let themselves remain at the bottom of the pay scale with little to no true value and easily replaced.

    They should be thankful they have a job, especially if it is one at or near minimum wage. If they don't like it, well, since they have no valuable skills and never got themselves education and training to be valuable, there are thousands of others just like them available to take their place.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  4. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    (none)
    Last Seen
    04-04-15 @ 09:11 PM
    Lean
    Communist
    Posts
    6,112
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Balancing Act

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Based on expectations do nothing,
    Nobody has a crystal ball.

  5. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    (none)
    Last Seen
    04-04-15 @ 09:11 PM
    Lean
    Communist
    Posts
    6,112
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Balancing Act

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    Thats a better option than wasting on some lazy dumbass
    The OP doesn't say that.

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel
    with little to no true value and easily replaced.
    The OP doesn't say that either.

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel
    They should be thankful they have a job, especially if it is one at or near minimum wage.
    They could be thankful. They may not be thankful. That really doesn't matter at all. Will they will be finding another job during the improved economic situation? If so, will you be able to hire new workers to replace them. Wages can only be changed once a year.

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel
    If they don't like it, well, since they have no valuable skills and never got themselves education and training to be valuable, there are thousands of others just like them available to take their place.
    This is the only thing that you said that has anything to do with the OP. If this is true, you will turn out just fine with the 1st option. If you are wrong there could be some serious hiccups throughout the upcoming year. As CEO you have to gamble sometimes. You are the CEO. It's your decision.

  6. #16
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: Balancing Act

    Quote Originally Posted by vasuderatorrent View Post
    The OP doesn't say that.


    The OP doesn't say that either.


    They could be thankful. They may not be thankful. That really doesn't matter at all. Will they will be finding another job during the improved economic situation? If so, will you be able to hire new workers to replace them. Wages can only be changed once a year.


    This is the only thing that you said that has anything to do with the OP. If this is true, you will turn out just fine with the 1st option. If you are wrong there could be some serious hiccups throughout the upcoming year. As CEO you have to gamble sometimes. You are the CEO. It's your decision.
    "The bottom 80% are all making $15,080 per year and have been for the last 5 years."

    That kind a wage is either entry level and subject to change as they get experience or it is minimum wage unskilled labor.

    If it is entry level, then the salary and benefits that they will receive once they advance are more likely to determine if they stay or not. If they move, then they are probably going to start their clocks over and be stuck at that level longer. If their skills are still drawing that kind of salary at 5 years, then they are most likely to lazy incompetents that the company would be glad to loose.

    If they are minimum wage laborers, then they are unskilled/low skilled easily labor which means what I said not only applies but is frankly truthful.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  7. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    (none)
    Last Seen
    04-04-15 @ 09:11 PM
    Lean
    Communist
    Posts
    6,112
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Balancing Act

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    "The bottom 80% are all making $15,080 per year and have been for the last 5 years."

    That kind a wage is either entry level and subject to change as they get experience or it is minimum wage unskilled labor.

    If it is entry level, then the salary and benefits that they will receive once they advance are more likely to determine if they stay or not. If they move, then they are probably going to start their clocks over and be stuck at that level longer. If their skills are still drawing that kind of salary at 5 years, then they are most likely to lazy incompetents that the company would be glad to loose.

    If they are minimum wage laborers, then they are unskilled/low skilled easily labor which means what I said not only applies but is frankly truthful.
    You completely ignored the point of this exercised and used it as an opportunity to criticize people that you hate.

    The point of this OP would have been exactly the same if the employees were making $22,000 or $50,000 or $100,000. $15,080 was just an example. The question is how do you balance shareholder interests with employee interest.

    The point wasn't to prove how much that you hate people. That was never my intention.

    Btw: Your stereotypes are not accurate for a post 2008 economy.

  8. #18
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: Balancing Act

    Quote Originally Posted by vasuderatorrent View Post
    You completely ignored the point of this exercised and used it as an opportunity to criticize people that you hate.

    The point of this OP would have been exactly the same if the employees were making $22,000 or $50,000 or $100,000. $15,080 was just an example. The question is how do you balance shareholder interests with employee interest.

    The point wasn't to prove how much that you hate people. That was never my intention.

    Btw: Your stereotypes are not accurate for a post 2008 economy.
    No, I used reality instead of unrealistic examples.

    BTW, because I call the lazy and sometimes stupid does not indicate, in my case, hatred. It just an assessment of their abilities, motivations and why they are where they are.

    How are they not accurate? No matter someones previous vocation, they can always research what professions are hiring and retrain themselves to get hired. If they choose not to, then they are lazy, just like the unskilled/uneducated crowd who does not take the opportunities available. Sometimes age will play a factor, outside of that, laziness and stupidity are the only excuses that are accurate.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  9. #19
    Anti-Hypocrite
    molten_dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southeast Michigan
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,351

    Re: Balancing Act

    Quote Originally Posted by vasuderatorrent View Post
    You have just been hired CEO of an established company. The company has been showing meager profits for the past 10 years ranging from -5% thru 5%. This year you are anticipating a 20% profit which equates to $100,000,000 due to an improvement in the economy.

    Your company has 8,250 employees. The top 20% of your employees are very well paid. The bottom 80% are all making $15,080 per year and have been for the last 5 years. This year is different. The economy is better and these employees may leave for better opportunities. You also may have trouble hiring new employees if you set the wage too low. Your company by-laws states that you can only change wages once a year which is today.

    How do you balance making the stockholders happy with generous profits and keeping the employees happy with generous wages?

    Please wait for the poll.
    Why did our profit jump to 20% this year? Was it increase in efficiency? Did the workers do an especially good job? Did the market change? What I would do with it would depend on why it happened. I probably wouldn't raise employee salaries long-term, because I don't know if it was a one-time fluke, or if it will continue to happen. if the employees shared some of the responsibility for the changes that led to our improved performance, I'd make sure they got some of it as a one-time bonus.
    If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.

    If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  10. #20
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    30,001

    Re: Balancing Act

    Adjust shareholder % if necessary to ensure a yearly cost of living increase for employees.

    All other employee raises should be merit-based.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •