# The Truth About Jobs



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

This will never be reported in main stream media, but the sad truth of the matter is companies hate employees, even if they are integral to the bottom line. Employees are seen as both an asset but also as a liability. The costs of hiring and firing them are high, their benefits are too much, they unionize, they turn over, they get sick or lazy, or have addiction problems, take vacations and need time off to care for their kids.

If given the opportunity to replace a worker with technology, they will jump at it even if the initial cost is higher than the employee.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

I don't see this as necessarily a bad thing. What's your point?


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

Companies exist to make money, not create employment........the former is the intent while the latter is an offshoot.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

True, but companies exist also because we allow them access to our resources and markets.

If they are of no benefit to us...............why should we accommodate them?


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

sags said:


> True, but companies exist also because we allow them access to our resources and markets.
> 
> If they are of no benefit to us...............why should we accommodate them?


Who is 'our'?

Miners, etc, pay royalties and taxes - they are not 'given' access........as to the 'market', if the market doesn't find products beneficial then the company goes Tango Uniform.


----------



## Ihatetaxes (May 5, 2010)

tygrus said:


> This will never be reported in main stream media, but the sad truth of the matter is companies hate employees, even if they are integral to the bottom line. Employees are seen as both an asset but also as a liability. The costs of hiring and firing them are high, their benefits are too much, they unionize, they turn over, they get sick or lazy, or have addiction problems, take vacations and need time off to care for their kids.
> 
> If given the opportunity to replace a worker with technology, they will jump at it even if the initial cost is higher than the employee.


A horrible and inaccurate generalization.

This has not been my experience AT ALL over the past 20 years and as a business owner with many staff and growing (just had a job offer accepted today from my next hire) I respect and like every single person who works for me.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

What is a "company"? Do you mean the people who work for the company hate the people who work for the company? 

I know there is a long standing antagonism between labor and management. Most of it is bullshit, and it has been very destructive to the economy.

But as long as unions and governments and academics push the myth that the guy who signs the paychecks and the guys who do the work are enemies what can you expect.


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

Ihatetaxes said:


> This has not been my experience AT ALL over the past 20 years and as a business owner with many staff and growing (just had a job offer accepted today from my next hire) I respect and like every single person who works for me.


So if you could raise your profits by 25% by adopting technology instead of hiring staff, you wouldn't do it? Cmon


----------



## richard (Jun 20, 2013)

tygrus said:


> So if you could raise your profits by 25% by adopting technology instead of hiring staff, you wouldn't do it? Cmon


Everyone thinks the same way. No one pays a mortgage for fun or for the good of society, they do it because it's necessary and only if it's absolutely necessary. If they can refinance at a lower interest rate they do. Since companies are run by people they will act the same way. Weren't you just saying that you only hire one person part-time to help you? Surely you could hire more...

There are also a lot of workplaces where both managers and employees are happy with the arrangements they have made.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

Employers pay employees just enough to not quit.

Employees work just hard enough to not get fired.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

tygrus said:


> So if you could raise your profits by 25% by adopting technology instead of hiring staff, you wouldn't do it? Cmon


The way you talk, you would think they had a choice. If technology exists to do what you say, the ones who adopt it will stay in business and the ones who don't will go broke.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Norway told the oil companies the royalties they demanded for access to Norway's oil..........or the oil could just sit in the ground for another day.

The oil companies all balked and walked away.

After awhile, they came back and agreed to Norway's terms.

On the other hand, when Canada wanted to raise the royalty rate, the companies threatened to leave, and Canada backed down.

Norway has a huge sovereign wealth fund for the future

Canada has diddly squat put away for the future.

The difference is the fortitude of the politicians.

Corporations play hard ball. Our politicians are still in the T-ball league.


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

doctrine said:


> Employers pay employees just enough to not quit.
> 
> Employees work just hard enough to not get fired.


I recall George Carlin stating the above in one of his standup gigs. I couldn't find the actual video but the following is a classic nonetheless. I particularly like minute 1:11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q


----------



## newtothegame (Jan 2, 2014)

I somewhat tend to agree with the OP, at least with my current employer.

He flat out told me I am more or less a necessary evil (that cannot be outsourced), and that he wants nothing to do with me. He doesn't want to see me, hear me, or deal with me. In return, he promised that I will not hear, see, or deal with him unless a situation arises.

For me, I like this setup. I work best alone. The last thing I need is a top heavy workplace to get in my face.

I show up in the morning, answer to no one, do my job, go home.

It's perfect! I've worked for many employers, and it seems that this guy has it right. He's flat out honest, we make each other money, and we stay out of each other's way 95% of the time. I wouldn't want it any other way.


----------



## Guban (Jul 5, 2011)

tygrus said:


> This will never be reported in main stream media, but the sad truth of the matter is companies hate employees, even if they are integral to the bottom line. Employees are seen as both an asset but also as a liability. The costs of hiring and firing them are high, their benefits are too much, they unionize, they turn over, they get sick or lazy, or have addiction problems, take vacations and need time off to care for their kids.
> 
> If given the opportunity to replace a worker with technology, they will jump at it even if the initial cost is higher than the employee.
> 
> So if you could raise your profits by 25% by adopting technology instead of hiring staff, you wouldn't do it? Cmon.


These are very misleading statements, and I am saddened by what these quotes imply about your employment experiences. Sorry about all of the perceived wrongs that you have experienced.

If those problems make you think that companies hate their employees, then they must also hate their customers more for all of the problems they cause. Problems with their suppliers? Hate them too? Your use of hate is far too simplistic for such a harsh word.

With regards to technology vs hiring ... this certainly does not support your point. A choice to increase profits is what companies are about. Everything else is secondary. How about a choice of technology vs buying furniture (or something else that would be nice, but not as effective for the bottom line)? This does not imply that companies hate tables and chairs. I am assuming that companies would look at the longer term view. The initial outlay for technology would be an ongoing, more cost efficient contributor to the bottom line if that is what happened. Money is a limited resource, and the company has to choose wisely how to spend it. Anything else is irresponsible to the shareholders.


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

This certainly does not reflect my experience as an individual contributor or as a senior manager working for a number of large multi nationals. Sure it happens on occasion but in my experience not frequently.

Perhaps you did a poor job of researching and interviewing your employers. It is a two way street. In my experience you generally get what you put into it.


----------



## Longwinston (Oct 20, 2013)

More than a good education, a positive attitude will get you far in life.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

I thought this was gonna be a thread hating on Apple!

Then again, I suppose it is...


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I think nothing is black and white. 

There are employees you love because they are hardworking, think and solve problems before they arise, go the extra step without asking, and don't complain constantly...

On the other end, there are those who do less than the minimal, feel like they know better than everyone, feel they are being wronged, complain all the time, are usually disruptive, but think they are perfect and that it's all the other employees at fault which employers hate.

Most people fall in the middle. In boom times, employers take whatever they can get, in bust times they can pick and choose...

The ones in the first example however, would always be in demand, even with technology to replace them.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

Partly correct.

Some employers pay employees just enough to not quit. Some pay more and may have more engaged employees and some pay less and lose people. 

Some employees work just hard enough to not get fired. Some work harder and get ahead, and some work less and get fired.



doctrine said:


> Employers pay employees just enough to not quit.
> 
> Employees work just hard enough to not get fired.


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

At the company I used to work for, we had tons of meetings about efficiency and someone would inevitably ask "What is our biggest expense?". answer: Payroll

Employees are seen as a necessary expense. Payroll appears on the liability side of a company's financial sheet and no counter asset value is assigned. If the company spent a million on equipment, at least that asset would be recorded along with the corresponding debt. Even debt can be reworked into goodwill asset on the balance sheet. That should be all you need to know about how employees are viewed. Don't delude yourself to thinking this is some social contract.


----------



## Longwinston (Oct 20, 2013)

tygrus said:


> At the company I used to work for, we had tons of meetings about efficiency and someone would inevitably ask "What is our biggest expense?". answer: Payroll
> 
> Employees are seen as a necessary expense. Payroll appears on the liability side of a company's financial sheet and no counter asset value is assigned. If the company spent a million on equipment, at least that asset would be recorded along with the corresponding debt. Even debt can be reworked into goodwill asset on the balance sheet. That should be all you need to know about how employees are viewed. Don't delude yourself to thinking this is some social contract.


At good companies, employees are the biggest expense and it's greatest asset.
Your job, as an employee, is to be seen as an asset, not an expense.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

But employee's in most business have a revenue per employee,without employees how can a company make $$?
If a company is doing a project and billing out(example)80/100-hr,but the employee is being paid 30,how can a employee be a liability?(yes there are more costs on top of the 30,but know where near the price being billed out.
What could be a better income producing asset than that?


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

And that is leaving scale out of it(never mind 1 employee,but multiple)that's why business ownership is the path to wealth.(think about that advantage in leverage)


----------



## lightcycle (Mar 24, 2012)

donald said:


> But employee's in most business have a revenue per employee,without employees how can a company make $$?
> If a company is doing a project and billing out(example)80/100-hr,but the employee is being paid 30,how can a employee be a liability?(yes there are more costs on top of the 30,but know where near the price being billed out.
> What could be a better income producing asset than that?


There's a difference between revenue generating positions (sales, billable service) and internal ones that generate a cost for the company (HR, IT, support).

You're talking about the former, I suspect the original poster is talking about the latter.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

Well,if it's the private sector than i would argue it is cheaper to have these positions hired in house than contracting out.
I fail to understand tygrus point.
A company has to be viewed on a broad view of the entire company.
If the company is losing $ on employee's that's the owner's(mgmts)problem.


----------



## Guban (Jul 5, 2011)

tygrus said:


> At the company I used to work for, we had tons of meetings about efficiency and someone would inevitably ask "What is our biggest expense?". answer: Payroll
> 
> Employees are seen as a necessary expense. Payroll appears on the liability side of a company's financial sheet and no counter asset value is assigned. If the company spent a million on equipment, at least that asset would be recorded along with the corresponding debt. Even debt can be reworked into goodwill asset on the balance sheet. That should be all you need to know about how employees are viewed. Don't delude yourself to thinking this is some social contract.


This is a very interesting way of looking at things, and explains much of your previous posts, but it smells of accounting. I'm not too familiar with a balance sheet, but the employees should appear as an intangible asset, something akin to goodwill or the good name of a company, instead of a current operating cost as in paying for the heat or rent. If someone were to think about buying a company, aren't the employees thought of as part of the value of the company? How would you feel if you bought a (small) company, and then some of its key people left? Think of IPO buyers in this situation. They'd be pretty PO'd I imagine.

Your view of employees seems like it is seen through the lens of an accountant, and may be quite currently accurate from that perspective. Perhaps this is a fundamental flaw of GAAP that will change?


----------



## richard (Jun 20, 2013)

Guban said:


> This is a very interesting way of looking at things, and explains much of your previous posts, but it smells of accounting. I'm not too familiar with a balance sheet, but the employees should appear as an intangible asset, something akin to goodwill or the good name of a company, instead of a current operating cost as in paying for the heat or rent. If someone were to think about buying a company, aren't the employees thought of as part of the value of the company? How would you feel if you bought a (small) company, and then some of its key people left? Think of IPO buyers in this situation. They'd be pretty PO'd I imagine.
> 
> Your view of employees seems like it is seen through the lens of an accountant, and may be quite currently accurate from that perspective. Perhaps this is a fundamental flaw of GAAP that will change?


I don't think that's very common. Lots of companies lease an office and they don't count that building as an asset. As soon as the lease is done they have nothing. Given how quickly people can leave a job you can't call employees an asset. The company will be more profitable if the good employees stay but hope doesn't belong on a balance sheet.

Any employees that need to stay after a sale (which usually isn't too many) can be covered by appropriate terms in the acquisition and personal contracts with them. It's up to the buyer to make sure they have a reason to stay.


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

Nemo2 said:


> Companies exist to make money, not create employment........the former is the intent while the latter is an offshoot.


 Maybe a company should take over the goverment, Cut taxes by reducing employment 

The goverment just does not get it. Everything that exsists including the economy has x amount of energy. When the goverment creates jobs in the inefficent goverment sector it takes energy away from the productive private sector.


----------



## Guban (Jul 5, 2011)

richard said:


> I don't think *that*'s very common. Lots of companies lease an office and they don't count that building as an asset. As soon as the lease is done they have nothing. Given how quickly people can leave a job *you can't call employees an asset*. The company will be more profitable if the good employees stay but hope doesn't belong on a balance sheet.
> 
> Any employees that need to stay after a sale (which usually isn't too many) can be covered by appropriate terms in the acquisition and personal contracts with them. It's up to the buyer to make sure they have a reason to stay.


(my bolds)
I'm sorry, I don't know to what you are referring when you wrote "that".
I'm also sorry that you also feel that way about employees. I would definitely call good employees an asset to the company. Note that I use asset in the common meaning of the word which may or may not mean the same as to an accountant. "Hate" as used by the OP may have a different accounting meaning too. 

Hope does not appear on the balance sheet, but from what little I understand, many assumptions do. In a company takeover, is it not the assumption that most of the employees would stay? Can you imagine the result if a significant number of Shoppers Drug Mart employees left soon after the take over by Loblaw? Good luck maintaining the same level of profitablility then.


----------



## richard (Jun 20, 2013)

You mentioned accounting and balance sheets. I know employees have a lot of value but I have never heard an accountant talk about putting them on the balance sheet. You can't own people anymore  Think of employees as partners but not an asset.

If a significant number of Shoppers employees left they would hire new people. It's generally unlikely as long as nothing has changed for them but if that was a concern Loblaw might offer higher salaries or a bonus of some kind, possibly tied to contractual obligations. The top management team are supposed to be able to replace anything that's missing and rebuild parts of the business if necessary. They would certainly have contracts to make sure they stay.


----------



## Westerly (Dec 26, 2010)

Actually Accts will put them on the balance sheet, they call it Goodwill and roughly speaking it's the amount the company is worth net of assets / liabilities. They don't count legs and divide by two, but when a company is sold or control changes hands Goodwill is part of the calculation in the value of the purchase. It's partly the future earning potential and includes the employees.


----------



## richard (Jun 20, 2013)

Doesn't that include a lot of other things like brand value? In that case it may be more about their ability to attract and retain good employees in general rather than the specific ones they have now. I wouldn't buy a business that depends on key people without making sure they couldn't leave. You can buy a contract and still enforce it but you can't expect too much outside of that. And if goodwill is things that aren't assets that just shows again that employees aren't assets.


----------



## Westerly (Dec 26, 2010)

Yes brand value is often (can I say usually) part of it. They're assets but intangibles. If after you bought a welding shop all the trades walked away, you'd be left with tools and bills, which would have significantly less value than you might have paid for the business. When you make sure the key people can't leave before buying a business that's part of the value you're paying for. Might be less of an issue with say a high volume coffee outlet, but still a consideration.


----------



## richard (Jun 20, 2013)

Going back to what the OP was talking about, I haven't seen a company book a profit because they hired 100 people and increased their goodwill. Stranger things have happened but it's not a common view. Usually that affects the expectation of future profit rather than the balance sheet. That expectation is why you have goodwill or a stock price that's higher than the book value. Companies usually hire because they know it will increase their profit soon, not because they think it might have some enduring future value like a building.

The closest example to employees actually being an asset might be a sports team that has a great contract with a star player since they can sell or trade that contract. Of course the management would be wise not to talk too directly about "owning" the player. Those who do usually regret it before long


----------



## Westerly (Dec 26, 2010)

You mention share price, look at Bombardier last week. Lays off 1,700 and the share drops 5% or so on the news. The shareholders clearly value the employees if only indirectly. Management is directly responsible to shareholders for the share price and therefore must ensure they keep valuable employees. But you're right, the company won't take a direct loss on its B/S related to laying off those employees. When BBD gets taken over, the intellectual value will be included in Goodwill.

(and I know I'm oversimplifying what happened with BBD last week, but it works for my example)


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

Westerly said:


> You mention share price, look at Bombardier last week. Lays off 1,700 and the share drops 5% or so on the news. The shareholders clearly value the employees if only indirectly.


It's likely they value the apparent loss/lack of orders, which generally sparks layoffs, more.


----------



## Zoombie (Jan 10, 2012)

richard said:


> Going back to what the OP was talking about, I haven't seen a company book a profit because they hired 100 people and increased their goodwill. Stranger things have happened but it's not a common view. Usually that affects the expectation of future profit rather than the balance sheet. That expectation is why you have goodwill or a stock price that's higher than the book value. Companies usually hire because they know it will increase their profit soon, not because they think it might have some enduring future value like a building.
> 
> The closest example to employees actually being an asset might be a sports team that has a great contract with a star player since they can sell or trade that contract. Of course the management would be wise not to talk too directly about "owning" the player. Those who do usually regret it before long


Companies can't just write up goodwill and book a profit because they hired some people. Goodwill typically only arrives on a balance sheet through acquisitions, and would represent the excess of purchase price over market value of the acquired company's assets.


----------



## Longwinston (Oct 20, 2013)

An asset used in accounting is not the same as in common parlance. Employees are NOT an accounting asset using GAPP. Obviously, employees are an asset to a company, that is why they were hired presumably.

Goodwill does not account for employees. Employees contribute to IP, or intellectual property, but that is owned by the company, not the employee. Employee and company are meant to be a symbiotic relationship.

GAPP accounting does not count human beings as assets precisely because the company does not own them.


----------



## Westerly (Dec 26, 2010)

The web quickly identifies Goodwill as including the value of employees. Here's a quick definition that I would agree with:
"Assumed value of the attractive force that generates sales revenue in a business, and adds value to its assets. Goodwill is an intangible but saleable asset, almost indestructible except by indiscretion. It is built painstakingly over the years generally with (1) heavy and continuous expenditure in promotion, (2) creation and maintenance of durable customer and supplier relationships, (3) high quality of goods and services, and (4) high quality and conduct of management and employees." 

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/goodwill.html#ixzz2rju9QDgK

Yes they are not counted one-by-one, but they are absolutely assets to a company and accounted for in Goodwill, on acquisition.


----------



## Longwinston (Oct 20, 2013)

Westerly said:


> The web quickly identifies Goodwill as including the value of employees. Here's a quick definition that I would agree with:
> "Assumed value of the attractive force that generates sales revenue in a business, and adds value to its assets. Goodwill is an intangible but saleable asset, almost indestructible except by indiscretion. It is built painstakingly over the years generally with (1) heavy and continuous expenditure in promotion, (2) creation and maintenance of durable customer and supplier relationships, (3) high quality of goods and services, and (4) high quality and conduct of management and employees."
> 
> Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/goodwill.html#ixzz2rju9QDgK
> ...


No, that is referring to the conduct and reputation of employees. As in, the employees are so helpful at costco being a commonly known reputation of your company. If that company were to sell itself, then goodwill being paid would pay for that reputation. Alternatively, a world renowned employee training program.
It does not have anything to do with a particular employee. 
Thank you for showing the error of referring to a google result over good common sense. 
Humans are not commodities.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Not quite true, or there wouldn't be key man insurance.


----------



## Westerly (Dec 26, 2010)

I wasn't trying to insult you with the quote. That's what I meant by they aren't counted one-by-one, as in people aren't individually owned. You won't see "Mr. Winston" listed on the Balance Sheet beside equipment. However, the value of today's workforce that will produce tomorrow's revenues is inherent in goodwill. It's admittedly abstract. 

"Humans are not commodities", that could be a long conversation.


----------



## hystat (Jun 18, 2010)

sags said:


> Norway told the oil companies the royalties they demanded for access to Norway's oil..........or the oil could just sit in the ground for another day.
> 
> The oil companies all balked and walked away.
> 
> ...


I don't think you can say that about the east end of the country, NL and the Danny Williams led deals for offshore extraction.


----------



## Cal (Jun 17, 2009)

I don't get the fuss the media has over the minimum wage rising......why not run stories asking why hasn't gov't done more to create real jobs that pay twice that in the manufacturing sector.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

What happened to............. corporate tax cuts create jobs?

_Meanwhile we just heard the feds got the counting wrong on the November jobs report. Instead of creating 21,000 new positions that month, the country actually shed 27,600. Whoops. I guess the margin of error is now 200%. And as you know, we lost another 46,000 jobs in December, punching the unemployment rate higher than that of the United States. There’s no pretty way to put this – the elimination of 73,000 jobs in the last sixty days of 2013 is an unmitigated disaster._

http://www.greaterfool.ca/


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

https://businessincanada.com/2013/11/08/canada-united-states-unemployment-rate-2013-2014/


This...from TD: http://www.td.com/document/PDF/economics/special/Canada_US_unemployment.pdf


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Another barometer is the trade surplus numbers.

For the 23rd month in a row..........Canada had a trade deficit.

In November it was expected to be -140 million...........but it was - 940 million.

Revised October numbers went from + 75 million...................to - 908 million.

Canada is importing almost 1 Billion dollars a month more imports than it is selling in exports.

That is not good news for the economy and jobs.

Since Canada has a surplus in trade with the US.............where are all the imports coming from?

_Exports to the United States, which comprised 75.3% of all Canadian exports in November, grew by 0.6%, while imports rose by 2.0%. As a result, the *trade surplus with the United States *fell to US$2.75 billion from $3.08 billion in October._

http://business.financialpost.com/2...s-as-u-s-trade-deficit-shrinks-to-4-year-low/


----------



## OurBigFatWallet (Jan 20, 2014)

tygrus said:


> This will never be reported in main stream media, but the sad truth of the matter is companies hate employees, even if they are integral to the bottom line. Employees are seen as both an asset but also as a liability. The costs of hiring and firing them are high, their benefits are too much, they unionize, they turn over, they get sick or lazy, or have addiction problems, take vacations and need time off to care for their kids.
> 
> If given the opportunity to replace a worker with technology, they will jump at it even if the initial cost is higher than the employee.


The other side of this is of course that employees are what makes a company carry on its business. Sure they take vacations, mat leaves etc but with no employees you have no business


----------



## newtothegame (Jan 2, 2014)

There is the option for every business owner to run a one man show.

I have witnessed much discourse between employer and employee. It will never end.

A family member of mine decided years (decades) ago to run a one man show. Sure, profits may not have been what they could've been due to lack of ability to expand via this method, but he has done quite well for himself.

40 years in business, and he still has to turn away work. He wouldn't wan't it any other way!


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

newtothegame said:


> There is the option for every business owner to run a one man show ...


It depends.

My sister-in-law's hair salon scales this way. She couldn't find any potential employees that she felt were reasonable so she downsized from a shop with eight chairs to two chairs.


On the other hand - I'd like to see the one man show that meets the gov't requirements and runs a business for things like cars, pharmaceuticals, financial institutions etc.


Cheers


----------



## loggedout (Dec 30, 2009)

The future of work is not bright for humans. We're on the cusp of a transformational change where machines will become autonomous and threaten all manner of jobs that previously many thought were untouchable. Whether corporations hate employees or not is really immaterial when machines are becoming increasingly capable and cheaper.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Sabotage

Etymology[edit]

Claimed explanations include:
That it derives from the Netherlands in the 15th century when workers would throw their sabots (wooden shoes) into the wooden gears of the textile looms to break the cogs, fearing the automated machines would render the human workers obsolete.[1]
That it derives from the French sabot (a wooden shoe or clog) via its derivative saboter (to knock with the foot, or work carelessly).[2]
That it derives from the late 19th-century French slang use of the word sabot to describe an unskilled worker, so called due to their wooden clogs or sabots; sabotage was used to describe the poor quality work of such workers.[3]


Note the first one...


----------



## loggedout (Dec 30, 2009)

JustAGuy, what's your point?

They were wrong, or were they just too early in their prediction?


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

loggedout said:


> JustAGuy, what's your point?
> 
> They were wrong, or were they just too early in their prediction?


Or...is he inciting insurrection?


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I suppose if you keep predicting the end of the world, eventually you'll be right...


----------



## Ihatetaxes (May 5, 2010)

Just a Guy said:


> I suppose if you keep predicting the end of the world, eventually you'll be right...


Its working for Garth Turner


----------



## Andrew (May 22, 2009)

I think this whole questions depends on the industry. If the industry is in decline and margins are thin than employers look to take more from employees to hit the numbers. If an industry is healthy and growing than employers treat employees better to drive higher profit.


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

Absolutely, this comment about industry and margins mirrors my experience.

I was a senior manager in the IT industry-hardware, services, etc. Margins fell substantially. The result was a continuous reduction in the workforce, significant offshoring of jobs, contracting out, significant decline in benefits, employee morale hit the bottom as measured by annual surveys, increased turnover/loss of high performing individuals, etc. And the perceived effectiveness of our leadership decreased every year. Over the years I saw the benefits burden decrease from 1.52 to 1.24/1.22 of salary and it is still going down.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

tygrus said:


> At the company I used to work for, we had tons of meetings about efficiency and someone would inevitably ask "What is our biggest expense?". answer: Payroll
> 
> Employees are seen as a necessary expense. Payroll appears on the liability side of a company's financial sheet and no counter asset value is assigned. If the company spent a million on equipment, at least that asset would be recorded along with the corresponding debt. Even debt can be reworked into goodwill asset on the balance sheet. That should be all you need to know about how employees are viewed. Don't delude yourself to thinking this is some social contract.


You seem a little confused. Your employer is not your mommy or your daddy. A job is not something someone gives you like a present. A job is something someone needs done. Show up and do your job, you get paid. It is something that has to get done. It is not necessarily fun, or rewarding, or pleasant, or enjoyable. That is why it is called "Work" not "SuperHappyFunTime".

With all this being understood, it is possible to enjoy your work if you want to, and to have pleasant interactions with your employer and your fellow workers but it is not mandatory. Getting the job done is mandatory.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> You seem a little confused. Your employer is not your mommy or your daddy. A job is not something someone gives you like a present. A job is something someone needs done. Show up and do your job, you get paid. It is something that has to get done. It is not necessarily fun, or rewarding, or pleasant, or enjoyable. That is why it is called "Work" not "SuperHappyFunTime".
> 
> With all this being understood, it is possible to enjoy your work if you want to, and to have pleasant interactions with your employer and your fellow workers but it is not mandatory. Getting the job done is mandatory.


+1


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I would also point out that no one is forcing you to take the job. If you don't want to do it, find something else...or starve. If there weren't people out there willing to work for less, then pay would increase. At the same time, always expecting more money for doing the same work because it costs you more to live seems odd. People don't like paying more for products and services, yet want to be paid more for building products or giving services...forcing prices to increase...


----------



## Longwinston (Oct 20, 2013)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> You seem a little confused. Your employer is not your mommy or your daddy. A job is not something someone gives you like a present. A job is something someone needs done. Show up and do your job, you get paid. It is something that has to get done. It is not necessarily fun, or rewarding, or pleasant, or enjoyable. That is why it is called "Work" not "SuperHappyFunTime".
> 
> With all this being understood, it is possible to enjoy your work if you want to, and to have pleasant interactions with your employer and your fellow workers but it is not mandatory. Getting the job done is mandatory.


Exactly!


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Wages should rise if there is a shortage of labor (or if people are not willing to do the job for the pay offered), but it distorts the domestic economy if companies are allowed to bring in foreign workers as cheap labor. 

While the practice may alleviate the companies labor problem..........it invariably increases the cost of social programs for the low paid workers, and contributes very little to the economy if workers have little discretionary spending. It also creates mini ghetto areas in cities, where low paid workers are forced to live in subsidized housing complexes. The major "problem" areas for our local police force are in such areas, and that comes with a cost to the public......as our continually increasing police budget indicates.

Subsidized housing, subsidized child care, subsidized health care, subsidized transit passes, ..........are all costs passed from companies to the citizens.

Companies like Walmart, Tim Hortons, and McDonalds already use the public social system to subsidize their work force.

If low wages create strong economies, places like Bangladesh would be thriving.


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

I get really tired of people blaming others, or Government, for their problems.

If you don't like you job or your employer then find something else and quit. It is up to YOU. Redirect your energies from whining and complaining to doing something about your situation.

Same for retirement. Why blame the Government or anyone else if you fail to save for retirement or take advantage of the programs that are available to assist you.

Looking for source of your issue? Go no further than you bathroom mirror and have a good, long look. Your inaction or failure to take responsibility for your own well being is the root of your problem. Start there.


----------

